JUDGMENT : - Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.: This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 18.1.97 and 3.3.97 respectively passed by the learned Judge Special Court E.C. Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Alipore in as case No.1 of 1996 granting probate of the Will of Smt. Radha Rani Chattopadhya dated 10.1.80. 2. The aforesaid judgment and decree has been challenged on the grounds taken as many as 23 which are almost repetitions and/or overlapping of each other. On perusal of the entire grounds as aforesaid it appears that the same has been challenged on the grounds that the learned court below has erred in appreciating the evidences in its perspective and that executants of the Will Radha Rani Chattopadhya did not execute the same and that her handwriting was taken on some blank paper which has since been converted to a Will. 3. It has further been stated that there is an interpolation (jointly and/or severally) that the said Will was at the instance of the scribe and not as per any statement of Radha Rani and that there is no enjoinder of parties and that there is no endorsement on the body of the Will itself about the same was explained to the executant in Bengali. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant touching all the points has contended that the said Will is not a rational one and that (singly and jointly) as apparent in second paragraph of the said Will itself (exhibit-I). Learned lawyer for respondent, however, supported the judgment and decree granting probate of the said Will of Radha Rani to the profounder/plaintiff/respondent here. He has drawn the attention of the court to the evidence of DW. 1, the appellant herein before, that he himself was satisfied with the allotment. He gladly accepted the allotment and still then he did so at the time of deposition. He, however, could not produce any admitted signature of his mother before the court. Thus the question of getting it compared be ruled out and that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiff/propounder/respondent herein before. 5. PW.1 Bamon Das Mukherjee's hand-writing is there in respect of the term severally and jointly. Now, it appears that in the absence of this particular word the sentence would not be complete apart from that the witness happens to be an advocate by profession though of taxation branch. 5. PW.1 Bamon Das Mukherjee's hand-writing is there in respect of the term severally and jointly. Now, it appears that in the absence of this particular word the sentence would not be complete apart from that the witness happens to be an advocate by profession though of taxation branch. It was in his own handwriting, he on oath asserted that the same was executed by the executant and that contents of that Will was fully explained to the testator by him. There is an endorsement to that effect on the body of the Will itself. However, there is no such endorsement that it was explained to her in Bengali. But in his deposition as PW. 1, he categorically asserted that he explained the same to her in Bengali and she admitted the same as correct. He has categorically denied that the particular word 'singly or jointly' was not interpolation. Nothing is shown as to the reason for disbelieving this particular witness who was deposing at the age of 83. 6. On perusal of the entire materials on record and the grounds that has been advanced here in the memo of appeal and the objections filed before the learned Trial Court by the appellant/objector/opposite party nowhere alleged that the said Will tainted with fraud, mistake, misrepresentation thus probate be refused. 7. On careful perusal of the entire evidences on record and the spirit of the contents of the said Will of Radha Rani goes to show that there is even no whisper of deprivation of any of her offspring and/or any bequest, it involve everybody thus discriminating none in any way. In other words, the contents and the respective allotments made in the said Will on the face of it cannot be viewed with any suspicion which the propounder is supposed to explain. 8. Admittedly while the Will is in the English script and that Radha Rani signed in Bengali but the evidences on record goes to show more in respect of PW. 1 who happens to be an advocate by profession knowing the family well acquainted with Radha Rani arid her all the sons for last 12 years prior to Radha Rani's death as on oath deposed that the Will was drafted at the instance of Radha Rani in his own handwriting and she put her signature in his presence (marked exhibit-I). 1 who happens to be an advocate by profession knowing the family well acquainted with Radha Rani arid her all the sons for last 12 years prior to Radha Rani's death as on oath deposed that the Will was drafted at the instance of Radha Rani in his own handwriting and she put her signature in his presence (marked exhibit-I). He has also asserted that it was explained to her in Bengali and she admitted the same as correct. She was physically fit and mentally alert at the time of the execution of the Will which was so asserted by Dr. Bijoy Baran Dey, P.W. 3, and another attesting witness Kali Das Mukherjee, PW. 2, also deposed corroborating the execution of the said Will by Radha Rani and assertain that Radha Rani was physically fit and mentally alert at the relevant point of time. This PW. 2 also happens to be the brother-in-law of one of her son's Jnanendra Chatterjee's wife's brother. 9. Appellant/objector while deposing before learned Court below as DW. 1 did not assert as to whether Radha Rani's signature appearing thereon in the Will (marked Exhibit- 1) is that of her or not. It is a failure on his part to a positive assertion of a negative fact, i.e. Radha Rani's signature thereon only then it could have called upon to be compared by an expert and in the absence of the same such a recourse was not taken by the learned court below. In the absence of such assertion, and that he himself was satisfied with the allotment made in the said Will itself and also in the absence of any allegation let alone evidence worthy of taking into account suspecting and/or questioning the genuinity/authenticity of the Will itself and its due execution by Radha Rani. 10. In respect of non-joinder/ mis-joinder learned Court below decided these two points as particular issues on perusal of the objection itself read together with the deposition of PW. 1, i.e. the objector/appellant herein before nowhere stated as to who has been left out. Thus that point is also a vague one as has been held by the learned Court below. 11. On perusal of the entire materials it appears that the learned Trial Court allowed probate of the aforesaid Will on sound principles of law. 1, i.e. the objector/appellant herein before nowhere stated as to who has been left out. Thus that point is also a vague one as has been held by the learned Court below. 11. On perusal of the entire materials it appears that the learned Trial Court allowed probate of the aforesaid Will on sound principles of law. In the result, this appeal fails, however, keeping in view of the circumstances without costs. Ordered accordingly. Appeal dismissed.