JUDGMENT Joytosh Banerjee, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.88 passed in original Suit No.2 of 1984 by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore in the district of 24-Parganas(S). By the impugned judgment, the learned court below granted probate of a registered Will dated 12.12.1975 executed by Smt. Durga Mondal. 2. In short, the case of the respondent No.1 plaintiff is that Smt. Durga Mondal who was a Hindu governed by Daya Bhaga School of Hindu Law died on 26.5.80 at her residence at village Chairi, P. O. Nepal Gunge, P. O. Bishnupur in the district of 24-Parganas (now in the district of South 24-Parganas), leaving a registered Will dated 12.12.1975 as her last Will. It is further alleged that the said Will was duly executed by the testatrix on 12.12.1975 and it was presented for registration by the testatrix herself. The plaintiff brought the suit for granting probate, as the executor named in the said Will. The probate application was contested by defendant No.6, Srikanta Mondal and defendant. No.4 Mihir MondaI. While the defendant No.6 challenged that the Will was not a genuine document, contending, inter alia, that Durga Mondal was suffering from various kinds of aliments and had no testamentary capacity. That apart, she had already divested herself of all her properties before the execution of the Will in question by executing a registered deed of gift in respect of the properties. The defendant No.4 Mihir Mondal on the other hand contested the proceeding by alleging that the Will in question was not executed by the said Durga Mondal in exercise of her independent and free volition and the document in question was forged one created with the help of so-called attesting witnesses and other persons. The defendant was closely related with Durga Mondal and her husband late Kinuram Mondal as he was the sister's son of Kinuram Mondal. Durga Mondal and her husband had no issue and Kinuram gifted away his properties in favour of the defendant by a registered deed of gift on 12.4.66. The suit being T.S. 39/67 was filed by Durga Mondal and one Ganesh Chandra Mondal for setting aside the deed executed by Kinuram Mondal in favour of the defendant and the suit was dismissed on contest in the trial court. The first appellate court also dismissed the appeal. The suit being T.S. 39/67 was filed by Durga Mondal and one Ganesh Chandra Mondal for setting aside the deed executed by Kinuram Mondal in favour of the defendant and the suit was dismissed on contest in the trial court. The first appellate court also dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the said Durga Mondal had no subsisting interest in the properties left by her husband and she had no right to execute the Will in question. 3. In the aforesaid background, the learned Judge of the court below raised certain issues including the question whether testatrix had testamentary capacity on the date of the execution of the Will and whether the Will was duly attested by the witnesses. The learned trial court on consideration of evidence on record and the other relevant facts and circumstances came to a clear finding that the Will in question was properly executed by the executrix Durga Mondal and at that time she had testamentary capacity. Such court further held that the Will in question was duly attested by the witnesses and on this finding came to a further finding that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to get the probate of the Will and accordingly the order as indicated above was passed. 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant has only contended, in this appeal, that the Will in question has not been proved in accordance with law. His further contention on this point is that one important witness Kushadhaj Gaji who wrote the name of Durga in the Will and who identified the executant before the registering authority has not been examined and for such non-examination, an adverse inference should be drawn up in respect of the proper execution of the Will. The learned Advocate for the respondent on the other hand has contended that the Will in question has been properly proved in accordance with law by the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3 pages 58 and 68 of the Paper Book. He has further contended that the defendant of the case also tried to challenge the Will in question on the ground of fraud without giving the particulars of such fraud. He has further pointed out that the evidence on record has also clearly proved the physical condition of the executrix, by establishing that the she was physically fit and mentally alert at the time of execution of such document. 5. He has further pointed out that the evidence on record has also clearly proved the physical condition of the executrix, by establishing that the she was physically fit and mentally alert at the time of execution of such document. 5. Since the learned Advocate for the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court only on the ground that the Will in question was not properly proved, we need not enter into the other points which have been covered in the argument of the learned Advocate for the respondent. Section 68 of the Evidence Act lays down that documents required by the law to be attested shall not be used as evidence unless at least one attesting witness is called to prove its execution, if he is alive and subject to the process of the court. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act lays down the formalities required by law to be observed in the execution and attestation of a Will. The following formalities are required to be observed for the purpose of execution:- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his marks to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in presence of the testator but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. By virtue of the aforesaid two provisions, a Will is required to be proved by examining one or more of the attesting witnesses though no particular form of attestation is necessary, but each of the attesting witnesses must see the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or must receive from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark. It is also clear that there is no necessity that more than one attesting witness should be present at the same time at the spot where the testator put his signature or mark on the Will 6. Let us examine the evidence on record, in the light of the procedure laid down under the aforesaid section. P. W. 1 Kinuram Mondal, one of the attesting witnesses, in his evidence has stated that executrix Durga put her L.T.I. on the Will at every page and Kushadhaj Gaji wrote the name of Durga Mondal below. L.T.I s of Durga. He has further stated that when Durga put her L. T. I. with the assistance of Kushadhaj then all the witnesses saw the same and they were present at the spot. After she put her L.T.I. son the Will the witnesses including he himself attested the same by putting their signatures. It is also his evidence that Durga also saw them to sign the deed. It is the further evidence of the witness that Dhiren Babu who wrote the Will, read over and explained the Will to Durga before the same was executed. On the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1, the Will was admitted in evidence and marked Ext -1. The witness has further disclosed that he alone was present on the day when the Will was written but on the date of execution, the attesting witnesses and others were present. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the Will was signed at 11 A.M. in the Sherista of Chandi Babu and from the Sherista they went to registry office. The witness has also denied a suggestion that the Will in question was not drafted, written and executed on the instruction of Durga. P. W. 2 Gosta Mondal is also an attesting witness but at the witness Box, the witness has stated that the document Ext. 1 bears a signature in his name, but he did not sign any Will. The witness has also denied a suggestion that the Will in question was not drafted, written and executed on the instruction of Durga. P. W. 2 Gosta Mondal is also an attesting witness but at the witness Box, the witness has stated that the document Ext. 1 bears a signature in his name, but he did not sign any Will. At this stage, the witness has been allowed to be cross-examined under section 154 of the Evidence Act and on being examined the witness who at the first instance has tried to deny the signature appearing in Ext. 1 as his own, has changed his version by first of all admitting that the signature in question belongs to him, but at the same time by claiming that his signature was taken on the blank white paper to supervise Pal-Parban. In our considered opinion, the witness is capable of giving different versions at different times and therefore he is not at all worthy of credence. 7. P. W.3 Adhar Gayan is also an attesting witness. He has identified his signature as a witness of the Will which has been marked Ext. 1/J. It is also his evidence that Durga Mondal put her L.T.I. in his presence and her name was written by Kushadhaj Gaji in his presence. Other attesting witnesses also signed the Will as a witness in his presence. He has corroborated the evidence of P. W.1 by stating that Lawyer Dhiren Babu read over the contents of the Will to Durgamoni in presence of the attesting witnesses. The cross-examination of the witness further goes to indicate that he and other attesting witnesses on the date of execution of the Will came to the Sherista of Chandi Babu in the Judge's Court premises at Alipore and they affixed their signatures as attesting witnesses in that Sherista. On that day, the Will was registered. He has further stated which also substantially corroborates the evidence of P.W.1, on the point that the Will in question was not written in his presence and it had been previously written and it was kept in the Sherista. Like P. W.1, he had also denied suggestion from the side of the defendant that Durge Mondal did not execute any Will and they were not present at the time of such execution. Like P. W.1, he had also denied suggestion from the side of the defendant that Durge Mondal did not execute any Will and they were not present at the time of such execution. At the same time, he has disclosed that it is not possible for him to tell who signed the deed after whom, thereby indicating that it is not possible for him to tell, who amongst the attesting witnesses signed first and who put his signature thereafter and so on. In this way, we find that there is enough evidence to show that the Will in question was attested by more than 2 witnesses each of whom has seen the testatrix affix her thumb impression to the Will. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that one of the attesting witness examined in this 'case, namely, P. W. 2 has not corroborated evidence of other two witnesses. He has on the other hand stated very clearly on being cross-examined by the plaintiff that he put his signature on a blank white paper and in the cross-examination made by defendant No.6, he has further disclosed that such signature was taken by Srikanta and Nishikanta Mondal sons of Basudev Mondal on a blank white paper forcibly. In our considered opinion, due to the aforesaid evidence by a witness who has been allowed to be cross-examined by the party who called the witness, the effect of evidence of other two competent attesting witnesses can not be allowed to be erased. It is wall settled that under section 154 of the Evidence Act, the Court has discretion to permit cross-examination of a witness when it is satisfied from the manner in which the witness gives evidence that he is not desirous of telling the truth and that it is necessary to give such permission to elicit the truth. In this way, the section confers a judicial discretion on the court to permit cross-examination and that the discretion must be judiciously and properly exercised in the interest of justice. In the instant case considering the entire evidence of the other attesting witnesses we have got no reason to come to a conchision that the discretion as contemplated under section 154 is not judiciously arid properly exercised in the interest of justice. In the instant case considering the entire evidence of the other attesting witnesses we have got no reason to come to a conchision that the discretion as contemplated under section 154 is not judiciously arid properly exercised in the interest of justice. It is also contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that most important person, namely, Kushadhaj Gaji who wrote the name of the executrix in his pen and who later on identified her before the registering authority at the time of the registration of the document has not been examined, and the failure on the part of the plaintiff to examine such a witness, will raise a suspicion in the mind of the court about the proper• execution of the Will. We do not find any force behind such argument. From the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant, it is seen that the said person no doubt helped the executrix to write her name through his pen and also identified her before the registering authority, but it is not shown that the said witness knew all about the circumstances under which the Will was executed. No doubt from the evidence of P. W. 1 we find that the said Kushadhaj Gaji was present at the time of execution of the document, but for that reason it cannot be said that the document in question will be a suspect due to non-examination of such witness. This is more so, in view of the fact there were three attesting witnesses of whom two witnesses have properly stated on oath, the way the Will was executed and how they attested such document in presence of the executrix. The execution of the Will has been sufficiently proved by the oral testimonies of the P. Ws. 1 and 3 which has not been effectively challenged in the cross-examination in order to cast a doubt in the mind of the court that actually the Will could not be executed as claimed by the plaintiff and there could not be question of attestation by the witness, namely, P. Ws. 1 and 3. 8. In support of his contention that the Will in question has not been properly proved, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred some decisions of the Supreme Court and also of this Court. 1 and 3. 8. In support of his contention that the Will in question has not been properly proved, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred some decisions of the Supreme Court and also of this Court. In this way, he has placed reliance in the case of Gura vs. Atma Singh & Ors., reported in (1992) 2 SCC 507 , Gurudas Chatterjee vs. Bijoy Krishna Banerjee & Ors., reported in 74 C. W. N. 1041, Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. VS. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased, his legal representatives & Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 . In these cases, it has been laid down that the mode of proving a Will does not originally differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. In the instant case, in course of his argument, the learned advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to the fact of non-examination of the said Kushadhaj Gaji as the only suspicious circumstance which can raise a doubt about the proper execution of the Will in question. We have already pointed out that when the propounder has discharged the onus by proving the Will through the oral testimonies of two attesting witnesses whose evidence on the material points has not been demolished by the cross-examination, the mere non-examination of the said Kushadhaj Gaji cannot be a cogent ground for raising any suspicion about proper execution of the document. Since no other question has been raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant, we need not consider the same, which has been duly considered by the trial court in the impugned judgment. 9. In the result, the appeal must fail. Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by the court below are hereby affirmed. No cost. Appeal fails and dismissed.