ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31. 03. 2000 passed by the Id. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in O. C. Case No. 9 of 1997. ( 2 ) A thumbnail sketch of the petitioner's case is that Rama Devi, lately a resident of premises No. 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, P. S. Amherst street, Calcutta - 700 009, went under forced circumstances to her sister's residence at Andul Mouri, Howrah for her security and nursing and there she fell ill and died on 08. 07. 95. But before her death during her stay there she duly executed her last and only Will and Testament dated 28. 12. 94 appointing the petitioner as executor to her said Will. The testatrix Rama Devi at the time of her death left behind her sole daughter Smt. Purnima Chatterjee, a resident of Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh as sole beneficiary under the Will, miss Anindita Mukherjee and Miss Paramita Mukherjee being the daughters of her pre-deceased son Ramendra Nath Mukherjee. No other application for grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of the assets and properties of the deceased has been made. ( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants Alpana Mukherjee, daughter-in-law of the testatrix and two granddaughters Anindita Mukherjee and paramita Mukherjee by filing a written statement inter alia denying the material allegations made in the application. Their case, in short, is that ramendra Nath Mukherjee, husband of Alpana, who was the absolute owner of premises No. 112b, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta - 700 009 had also 1/3rd share in premises No. 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road and on his death, the defendants and Rama Devi became joint owners of undivided 3/4lh share of premises No. 112b, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, having 1/4h share each, and also 3/4th share of the l/3rd share of Ramendra in premises No. 112g, acharya Prafulla Chandra Road. During the lifetime of Ramendra, the defendants and Rama Devi used to stay together in one mess. Smt. Purnima chatterjee, daughter of the deceased, was married long before and is living with her husband in Lucknow. After the death of Ramendra, defendant No. 1 was forced to live separately with her two minor daughters defendant Nos. During the lifetime of Ramendra, the defendants and Rama Devi used to stay together in one mess. Smt. Purnima chatterjee, daughter of the deceased, was married long before and is living with her husband in Lucknow. After the death of Ramendra, defendant No. 1 was forced to live separately with her two minor daughters defendant Nos. 2 and 3 with great difficulty in premises No. 112b, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road which is now entirely in possession of the defendants. The testatrix had no testamentary capacity to execute the Will nor was she aware of the contents of the Will, and she was forced to execute the Will in favour of her daughter purnima. The present application has been made only to deprive the defendants of their legitimate right in the properties and to harass them, and hence the application merits dismissal. ( 4 ) FOUR witnesses on behalf of the petitioner and one witness i. e. defendant no. 1 Alpana herself on behalf of the defendants were examined and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, the ld. Court below by the impugned order allowed the case. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the aforesaid judgment and order, the defendants have preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the ld. Court below was justified in passing the said order. ( 7 ) THE facts admitted and/or undisputed in the present case, as are evinced from the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, both oral and documentary, are as follows: Premises Nos. 112b and 112g, Acharya Prafulla chandra Road originally belonged to Ratendra Nath Mukherjee who predeceased his wife Rama Devi. The said premises 112b along with some vacant land fell in the share of Ratendra Nath in a partition suit before this Court (Ext. 2 ). After the death of Ratendra Nath a house was constructed on the said vacant land which was numbered as 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra road. On the death of Ratendra Nath, his properties were inherited by his widow Rama Devi, his son Ramendra Nath Mukherjee and daughter Purnima chatterjee. The marriage of Purnima took place in 1970 and since then she has been residing in her husband's place at Lucknow. Ramendra died on 01. 03. On the death of Ratendra Nath, his properties were inherited by his widow Rama Devi, his son Ramendra Nath Mukherjee and daughter Purnima chatterjee. The marriage of Purnima took place in 1970 and since then she has been residing in her husband's place at Lucknow. Ramendra died on 01. 03. 91 leaving behind his mother Rama Devi, wife Alpana and two minor daughters anindita and Paramita i. e. the defendants. On the death of Ramendra, Rama devi as mother along with her daughter-in-law Alpana and granddaughters inherited the shares of Ramendra. The testatrix Rama Devi died on 08. 07. 95 at Andul Mouri, Howrah in the house of her sister at the age of about 76/77 years. ( 8 ) IT is the evidence of P. W. 1 Goutam Mukherjee (petitioner), that during the lifetime of Ramendra he used to look after the property and he got the property mutated after the death of his father, the original owner, and after the death of Ramendra, his elder sister (i. e. the testatrix) handed over necessary documents to him for taking necessary steps when he discovered that Ramendra got one of the houses viz. premises No. 112b, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road mutated in his name only though the other house i. e. 112g, Acharya Prafulla chandra Road was mutated in the names of all the heirs, and subsequently on their prayer the house viz. premises No. 112b, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road was recorded in the names of all the heirs which remains uncontroverted in his cross-examination. ( 9 ) NEVERTHELESS, a Will has to be proved like any other document except as to special requirement of attestation under section 63 of the Indian Succession act. The burden of proof, that the testator had the requisite testamentary capacity and possessed of a sound disposing mind at the material time remains on the party propounding the Will. The propounder is required to prove that (i) the Will was signed by the testator, and duly attested by at least two witnesses (ii) the testator was of sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will made out. of his own volition, and (iii) he understood the effect of dispositions made. In this connection, the case of Surendra Pal vs. Saraswati arora, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1999 , may be relied on. of his own volition, and (iii) he understood the effect of dispositions made. In this connection, the case of Surendra Pal vs. Saraswati arora, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1999 , may be relied on. Once the Will is proved to have been executed by a person of competent understanding and apparently a free agent, the burden shifts to the party alleging undue influence or fraud, as was held in the case of Naresh Charan Das Gupta vs. Paresh Charan Das gupta, reported in AIR 1955 SC 363 . As a general rule, until the contrary is established, a testator is presumed to be sane and to have a mental capacity to make a valid Will, and no presumption of testamentary incapacity is permissible by the mere fact that the testator was advanced in years. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of said P. W. 1, he was in visiting terms with his cousin sister being the daughter of his paternal aunt who was older to him by age and was a resident of Maniktala. During the lifetime of her son she used to live with her son's family, but after the death of her son she used to live alone as she had to face ill-treatment and torture by her widowed daughter-in-law. His elder sister had been to Andul in the first part of 1995 when after the death of her son, her daughter-in-law refused to take charge of her and to give her food and shelter. She executed a Will (Ext. 6/1) appointing him the executor at her house at 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road in presence of him, lawyer Biswarup Mukherjee (P. W. 3) and three witnesses viz Sanat Kumar mukherjee (P. W. 2) Baren Mukherjee and Chittaranjan Roy (P. W. 4 ). At the time of execution of the Will his sister was fully alert, hale and hearty and she had testamentary capacity. He further stated that Purnima Chatterjee, the daughter of the testatrix is the sole beneficiary in the Will. He categorically denied the suggestions that at the time of her death Rama Devi was physically and mentally incapable and that she had no physical or mental capacity to execute the Will. The above evidence in material particulars is corroborated by p. Ws. 2 to 4. He categorically denied the suggestions that at the time of her death Rama Devi was physically and mentally incapable and that she had no physical or mental capacity to execute the Will. The above evidence in material particulars is corroborated by p. Ws. 2 to 4. P. W. 2 Sanat Kumar Mukherjee, nephew of the testatrix and one of the attesting witnesses to the Will executed by Rama Devi of 112g, Acharya prafulla Chandra Road, deposed that the testatrix executed the Will by putting her signature in presence of him and other attesting witnesses and thereafter they affixed their signatures on the document one by one in presence of other attesting witnesses and the testatrix. He further stated that she affixed her signatures after knowing the contents of the Will and she was mentally alert and fit at that time. As the Will was in English, Biswarup Babu (P. W. 3) read over and explained the contents of the Will to her in Bengali in his presence. He too categorically denied the suggestions that Rama Devi was not physically and mentally fit to execute the Will, that the Will in question was executed by her under his supervision and according to his instruction, that the Will does not contain the signatures of Rama Devi and that the Will in question was not in accordance with the free intention of Rama Devi. As per evidence of P. W. 3 biswarup Mukherjee, a practising Advocate of Calcutta High Court as also of administrative Tribunals and an attesting witness to the Will, Rama Devi instructed him to get one Will drafted and accordingly he got the Will drafted through Sunil Banerjee and the contents of the Will were incorporated as per instruction of Rama Devi. At the time of execution of the Will at premises No. 112g, acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, he was present, and since the Will was in English, he read over and explained the Will in Bengali to Rama Devi who thereafter affixed her signatures on all the pages of the Will after knowing the contents thereof in presence of Goutam Mukherjee (P. W. 1), Baren mukherjee, Sanat Mukherjee (P. W. 2) and Chittaranjan Roy (P. W. 4 ). A certificate that he read over and explained the contents to Rama Devi was incorporated in the Will, written by Sanat Mukherjee (P. W. 2), just above his signature. A certificate that he read over and explained the contents to Rama Devi was incorporated in the Will, written by Sanat Mukherjee (P. W. 2), just above his signature. It is his further evidence that she was mentally fit at that time and did not execute the Will under any duress or misrepresentation. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 4 Chittaranjan Roy, another attesting witness, who stated that Rama Devi executed the Will at 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road by putting her signatures on all the pages of the Will in presence of him, Baren mukherjee, Goutam Mukherjee (P. W. 2), Biswarup Mukherjee (P. W. 3) and goutam Mukherjee (P. W. 1 ). He affixed his signature on the Will as a witness in presence of Rama Devi who also saw him to put his signature in the Will, and all the said persons affixed their signatures in presence of Rama Devi and in presence of each other. Advocate Biswarup Mukherjee explained the contents of the Will to Rama Devi before she executed the Will by putting her signatures. At the time of such execution Rama Devi's mental condition was excellent, and there was no incident of misrepresentation or force or duress compelling Rama Devi to put her signatures on the Will. On the other hand, it is the evidence of O. P. W. 1 that she came to learn about the Will executed by her mother-in-law sometime in 1995, but she cannot recollect the date, month etc. of her knowledge. She stated that at the time of execution of the will the mental and physical condition of Rama Devi was not good, as since the time of death of her son on 01. 03. 91 she was not keeping well both mentally and physically, and the Will could not be signed by her as at the relevant point of time she was incapable of putting her signature. Such contentions are totally foreign to their pleadings. Moreover, it is her own admission that her mother-in-law brought a suit being T. S. No. 2597/92 against her in the City Civil Court where in the written statement filed by her on 30. 05. 95 she admitted in paragraph 7 that the plaintiff i. e. her mother-in-law was hardy and healthy which belies the alleged story of mental and physical incapacity of the testatrix to execute the Will in question. 05. 95 she admitted in paragraph 7 that the plaintiff i. e. her mother-in-law was hardy and healthy which belies the alleged story of mental and physical incapacity of the testatrix to execute the Will in question. ( 11 ) MR. B. B. Sarkar, ld. Counsel for the appellants, on referring to the evidence of P. Ws. contended that there is no indication in the Will in question regarding the place of its execution and the evidence of P. Ws. that it was executed at premises No. 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road is quite contradictory to the averment made in the application that before her death during her stay there i. e. at the residence of her sister at Andul Mouri she duly made and executed her last and only Will and testament in writing bearing date December 28,1994, and as such, no reliance should be placed upon the said testimony. He further contended that there is no evidence as to who inserted the date 28th December in the document. It is his further contention that the alleged execution of the Will in favour of daughter Purnima Chatterjee who is a permanent resident of Lucknow since 1970 leaving out and/or depriving the granddaughters was not at all the intention of the testatrix in absence of any cogent reason, and so all these circumstances give rise to a cloud of suspicion regarding execution of the Will. Mr. Jahar Chakraborty, ld. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, on referring the case of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee vs. Panchanan Banerjee, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1684 and Manas Kumar mukherjee vs. Pallab Kumar Mukhopadhyay, reported in 1999 (II) CHN 252 , contended that the place of execution is not the determinant factor here but whether the Will was executed by the testatrix out of her own volition on understanding the contents thereof, the answer to which on analyzing the evidence of P. Ws. will be found to be in the positive and since there was a strained relationship between the testatrix and the O. Ps. , depriving them of the properties by the testatrix is no ground for raising any suspicion. ( 12 ) NOW, the Will was executed on 28. 12. 94. There is no dispute that the testatrix Rama Devi died in the residence of her sister at Andul Mouri on 08. 07. 95. , depriving them of the properties by the testatrix is no ground for raising any suspicion. ( 12 ) NOW, the Will was executed on 28. 12. 94. There is no dispute that the testatrix Rama Devi died in the residence of her sister at Andul Mouri on 08. 07. 95. O. P. W. 1 stated that the Will was never executed by Rama Devi at 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road as at the relevant point of time she used to reside at Andul in the house of her nephew Sanat Mukherjee (P. W. 2)where she started residing after the death of her husband from 1992/93 which is self-contradictory since in her evidence-in-chief she deposed that she started residing there permanently in 1993 or 1994 and visited premises No,112g, acharya Prafulla Chandra Road only once or twice. It is admitted by her that in the suit being T. S. No. 2702/93 brought by her against her mother-in-law she described the defendant i. e. her mother-in-law as a resident of premises no. 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road which belies the story of residing of the testatrix in the house of her sister at Andul since 1992/93. Again, it is the specific evidence of P. W. I that her sister had been to Andul in the first part of 1995 and she started staying there six months prior to her death and prior to three/four months of her death she suffered from ailments, about which there is no denial in his cross-examination. Therefore, it leads to suggest that the testatrix used to reside at premises No. 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road at the relevant time in December, 1994 which is quite consistent with the execution of the Will at that premises, as deposed by all the four P. Ws. and it thus falsifies the said story of O. P. W. 1 regarding stay of the testatrix at Andul since 1992/93 or 1993/94. It has been averred in the application that before her death during her stay there she duly made and executed her last and only will and testament in writing bearing date December 28, 1994. The words "during her stay there" relate to "her death" and not to execution. The word/ words or sentence are to be read and understood in the context the same are used. The words "during her stay there" relate to "her death" and not to execution. The word/ words or sentence are to be read and understood in the context the same are used. That apart, when the testatrix was at her premises at 112g, Acharya prafulla Chandra Road on 28. 12. 94 and went to the residence of her sister at andul in the first part of 1995, as deposed by P. W. 1 above, the question of execution of the Will at the residence of sister on 28. 12. 94 is out of the way. Accordingly, the evidence of P. Ws. l to 4 regarding execution of the Will at premises No. 112g, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road does not appear to be inconsistent at all with the averment in the application. The evidence of P. W. 1 reveals that there are four other premises in between premises Nos. 112b and 112g. It is admitted by her that she used to stay at premises No. 112b in 1994 and it is not possible for anybody to tell while staying at premises No. 112b as to who were present at the time of execution of any Will inside premises no. 112g and who acted in what way at the time of execution of such Will. Who put the date 28th December in the last page of the Will is not the relevant factor nor it affects the execution in any way. One of the attesting witnesses viz Sanat kumar Mukherjee (P. W. 2) affixed his signature with similar date i. e. 28. 12. 94 beneath his signature which will suffice as duplicating of date is not necessary nor will it attach any special importance to the document. ( 13 ) AS regards the third contention above of Mr. Sarkar, it is the evidence of p. W. 1 that during the lifetime of son his sister used to live with her son's family, but after the death of her son she used to live alone as she had to face torture and ill-treatment by her widowed daughter-in-law. He did not witness any incident of torture or ill-treatment by the daughters or wife of Ramen on rama Devi, but Rama Devi showed him marks of injury sustained at the time of torture and ill-treatment. He did not witness any incident of torture or ill-treatment by the daughters or wife of Ramen on rama Devi, but Rama Devi showed him marks of injury sustained at the time of torture and ill-treatment. It is his further evidence that she had been to andul in the first part of 1995 when after the death of her son, her daughter-in-law refused to take charge of her and to give her food and shelter. O. P. W. 1 denied the signatures of Rama Devi in the Will and stated that she did not execute the Will out of her own volition she would not have deprived her granddaughters. In other words, if there was any provision for the two granddaughters in the Will, the Will could then be said to have been executed by the testatrix out of her free Will which is not at all acceptable. She claims that their relationship was very cordial. It is admitted by her that after the death of her husband she was forced to live separately and her mother-in-law forced her to live separately with her children in a different place, that in the contempt proceeding being Misc. Case No. 2626 of 1995 brought against her before the viiith Bench of City Civil Court, she deposed that the relationship between her and her mother-in-law was good during the lifetime of her son but after the death of her husband it became strained. So, on the face of her above evidence the story of cordial relationship between her and the testatrix does not stand at all. It is the evidence of P. W. 1 that his sister had full intention to give the property to her daughter through the Will. The evidence of P. W. 2 in this regard is that he suggested to Rama Devi to make some provision at least for the two daughters of her son, but she replied that since they did not keep any relationship with her, she had no obligation to make any provision for her granddaughters. Any and every circumstances is no suspicious circumstance. A circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal, or normally expected in a normal situation, or is not normally expected of a normal person, as was observed in the case of Indubala vs. Manindra, reported in AIR 1982 SC 133 . Any and every circumstances is no suspicious circumstance. A circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal, or normally expected in a normal situation, or is not normally expected of a normal person, as was observed in the case of Indubala vs. Manindra, reported in AIR 1982 SC 133 . In the case on hand, the ground of disinheritance having been explained as above, the disinheritance by itself cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance. The will has been duly proved and no suspicious circumstance surrounding execution of the Will could be found. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to cost. ( 15 ) INTERIM order granted earlier stands vacated. ( 16 ) LET xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties within a week from today on compliance with requisite formalities. Appeal dismissed.