SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal being preferred by the defendant is directed against the judgment dated 17th May, 2002 passed by the learned District judge, Burdwan in Will (probate) Case No. 6/407 of 1997/1996. The defendant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree by which the learned Court below allowed the prayer of the plaintiff/respondent for grant of probate of the last will/testament dated 9. 4. 1991 made by testatrix Bijoya Mala Bag, mother of both the sides. ( 2 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for grant of probate of the last will/testament dated 9. 4. 1991 made by deceased testatrix Bijoya Mala bag, contending that she was an executer of the said will and one of the beneficiaries as well. The said will was executed and registered on the same date i. e. , 9. 4. 91. It was drafted by a lawyer, executed in presence of the attestating witnesses required under the law. By the said will the plaintiff/ respondent together with her elder brothers Pratul Kumar Bag and Shymal kumar Bag ans sisters Smt. Pratima Bhaduri and Ratna Mukherji were named executors. On 18. 2. 92, the testatrix Bijoya Mala Bag died leaving behind five sons and four daughters. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties/appellants herein before Sunil Kumar, Mihir kumar, Dilip Kumar Bag who are the three sons of the testatrix opposed the petition by filing a written objection denying all the material allegations made in the application. It was submitted that the testatrix beforehand transferred some properties, namely "a" and "b" schedule to her eldest son in 1955 and gifted "c" schedule properties to four sons by a deed in 1960. Thus, those properties as contained in the will were not capable of being disposed of in a will/testament by the testatrix. One partition suit (T. S. No. 79/1994) is also pending in between the parties. It has further been contented that the testatrix Bijoy Mala was not physically and mentally fit and was not in sound mind and health to execute the alleged will which has been branded as a forged one and as a procured one by the plaintiff/ respondent only to deprive the brothers by undue influence. It has further been contented that the testatrix Bijoy Mala was not physically and mentally fit and was not in sound mind and health to execute the alleged will which has been branded as a forged one and as a procured one by the plaintiff/ respondent only to deprive the brothers by undue influence. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleading of the parties learned Court below framed as many as six issues mentioned in the body of the judgment and allowed the prayer of the plaintiff/respondent for grant of probate of the last will/testament made by Bijoy Mala Bag by the impugned judgment. ( 5 ) MR. Bikramjit Banerji, learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that the testatrix died on 8. 2. 92. Prior to her death she was not in good health and thus, did not have the mental alertness to understand the nature and consequences of the disposition made by her. The propounder, being one of the beneficiaries and deprivation of the appellants, is one of the grounds of suspicion to show that the document (will) was a procured/ manufactured one. There was already a partition suit pending in between the parties. There was no evidence of due instruction to the lawyer, and its due execution. ( 6 ) SRI Bikramjit Banerji (led by Sri Jiban Ratan Chatterjee) learned advocate placed reliance on a reported decision in AIR 1959 SC 443 (H. Venkatachda lyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma and Ors. ). ( 7 ) MR. Rabindra Narayan Dutt, learned Advocate leading the plaintiff/ respondent's sidecontended that though the said will has been branded as a forged one nothing has been stated about the signature of the testatrix on the document itself. ( 8 ) SRI Dutt further goes on contending that the moot question is as to whether execution and attestation of the will was there in accordance with law and to see if the testatrix was in sound disoposing state of mind, capable of understanding the consequences of disposition and to see if the will was procured by undue influence. ( 9 ) SRI Dutt has taken us through the evidences on record together with the pleadings. ( 9 ) SRI Dutt has taken us through the evidences on record together with the pleadings. There is no overt act on behalf of the propounder has been alleged, while three brothers submitted the objection but none else other than OPW-1 Sunil Kumar Bag, who could not file any paper showing that his mother (testatrix) was ailing at the time of execution of the will ( 10 ) AFTER hearing learned Advocates of both the sides and after going through the above case referred the aforesaid case (supra) lays down quoting the respective sections of Evidence Act, 67, 68, 45 and 47 vis-as proof of will and onus of proof on propounder, nature and duty of the courts in appreciation of evidence. Reference of the Sections 59 and 63-wills made therein. It is apt. to quote the relevant portion'of the aforesaid judgment :-"what is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills ? it is well known that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in Courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68, Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested ; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a Court of law. Similarly, sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a Court of law. Similarly, sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other* person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus, the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the will ? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not ; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. " ( 11 ) WE find that the propounder Smt. Amita Bag (Chakraborty) was not an attestating witness, but her evidence is consistent with the averments in the pleading, and she asserted that her mother was in good health and had mental alertness. Not a single suggestion was given to her about any ailment of her mother. ( 12 ) P. W. 2 Smt. Lakshmi Rani Bhaduri was one of the beneficiaries. Her positive assertion is that she is an attesting witness, the scribe and other witnesses also signed. Not a single suggestion was given to her about any ailment of her mother. ( 12 ) P. W. 2 Smt. Lakshmi Rani Bhaduri was one of the beneficiaries. Her positive assertion is that she is an attesting witness, the scribe and other witnesses also signed. The will was written by Sri Phani Bhusan Ghatak as per instruction of the testatrix, Sri Binoyananda Chatterji, junior to Sri "ghatak read over and explained the contents to her mother (testatrix ). Her brother Pratul, shymal, Mihir were also present and attested the document. ( 13 ) P. W. 2 is Sri Binoyananda Chatterji, Advocate of Asansol Court, then junior of Sri Phani Bhusan Ghatak, who also deposed as P. W. 4, P. W. 5 is another sister of the propounder. All these witnesses have proved due attestation and execution of the said will. P. W. 4 Sri Panchanan Ghatak is one of the senior most lawyers who had deposed and asserted positively about instruction to him by the testatrix, reading it over to her, signatures, registration of the document and about mental alertness of the testatrix. ( 14 ) MIHIR Bag, brother of the propounder, is one of the attestating witness to the said will and also one of the objectors, but he did not take stand to substantiate the allegation contained in the objection to the application for probate. This speaks a volume in favour of the due execution and attestation of the document as well. ( 15 ) NOW, let us have a glimpse of the document itself. It is Ext-1 (a ). On perusal of the document itself, it transpires that the testatrix has taken care of stating her family Constitution. Total assets, maintenance of her deity's welfare and its seva Puja's security, the anxiousness about the only daughter who could not be married till then. We find that the sons are quite well of and considerable properties were with them. The married daughters were given some portion of the properties that too was tenanted. ( 16 ) WE consider the aforesaid recitals are sufficient explanation about the non-disposition of any further properties to the sons, it do not simpliciter bring it within the purview of suspicious instances and/or any unnaturalness. ( 17 ) FURTHERMORE, we find that the lady (testatrix) beforehand has gone through different tramaction, thus presumed to be capable of understanding the nature of documents. ( 17 ) FURTHERMORE, we find that the lady (testatrix) beforehand has gone through different tramaction, thus presumed to be capable of understanding the nature of documents. ( 18 ) IN respect of the contention that the testatrix did not have title to the properties covered in the will, as she has alienated it before is of no sequence as a probate Court is not supposed to go into the title of the properties. The submission in respect of the pendency of the partition suit in between the parties also cannot impede the grant of probate as it stands altogether in a different footing. ( 19 ) BE that as it may, it is the dominant will of the testatrix that counts, she is at liberty to dispose of her properties as she chooses. ( 20 ) THE above discussion made by us considering the evidence and materials-on-record makes it clear that none of the grounds of challenge can be sustained. The findings arrived at by the learned Court below do not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.