JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the order dated 21.2.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Alwar in Miscellaneous Case No. 11/1996 whereby on the basis of Will probate has been granted. 2. For the disposal of the case necessary facts are that: The deceased Kishan Chand was an employee of the Rajasthan Bank, Branch of Church Road, Alwar. He died on 21.3.1995. In his life time he executed a Will on 15.3.1995. The description of the property has been stated in the Will. The Will was executed in favour of the respondent Smt. Ganga Devi. The respondent Smt. Ganga Devi moved an application for grant of letter of administration /probate before the learned District Judge. The objector filed objections on 15.9.1998. In the objection, it was the plea of the appellant that she being the legally wedded wife of deceased Kishan Chand and since the deceased has not executed a Will in favour of Smt. Ganga Devi as he was not in such a condition to execute the Will, therefore, the Will was a fabricated document. It was also stated that the respondent moved an application for letter of administration only just to harass the objector and to deprive him of her right. 3. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed three issues including relief which are as under : (1) Whether deceased Kishan Chand S/o Bhugra Mal Sindhi R/o Anwar executed a Will in favour of applicant Smt. Ganga Devi and the same was his last Will? (2) Whether the applicant Smt. Ganga Devi was entitled to obtain probate/letter of administration in relation to the movable/ immovable property of the deceased? (3) Relief. On behalf of the respondent including Smt. Ganga Devi six witnesses were produced and three documents were exhibited in the evidence. On behalf of the objector-appellant she got examined herself and produced 9 documents. The learned trial Court considering the matter in relation to Issue No. 1 reached to the conclusion that the deceased executed Will in favour of respondent and the Will was a genuine document and it was the last Will, therefore, decided Issue No. 1 in favour of respondent. The learned trial Court considering the matter in relation to Issue No. 1 reached to the conclusion that the deceased executed Will in favour of respondent and the Will was a genuine document and it was the last Will, therefore, decided Issue No. 1 in favour of respondent. The learned trial Court on the basis of findings recorded on Issue No. 1, decided Issue No. 2 in favour of non-applicant and the application has been decided in favour of the non-applicant and probate has been granted. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court the present miscellaneous appeal has been filed. 5. It is contended that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the matter and findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are perverse in nature and requires to be set aside. It is submitted that deceased Kishan Chand was not mentally and physically sound state of health on the day the Will said to have been executed as he was seriously ill. It is also submitted that soon after the execution of Will in a few days Kishan Chand died. It is submitted that by. hatching a conspiracy a fabricated document has been prepared on the basis of that the respondent has been able to get the probate in her favour. 6. On the other hand, it has been argued that the learned trial Court after considering the relevant material brought on record found that the Will was genuine, therefore, allowed the application seeking letter of administration/ probate. It is submitted that order passed by the learned trial Court is a reasoned one and required no interference. 7. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the material available on record. 8. In this case, AW-1 Smt. Ganga Devi in her statement recorded before the Court, has stated that Kishan Chand is her brother and he died on 21.3.1995 and was an employee of Rajasthan Bank. She has proved Will-Ex.A-1. She has also stated about the details of bank account of the deceased and other movable and immovable properties. She has further stated that she was entitled for. the properties left by her brother-deceased Kis)`ian Chand. In the cross-examination, she has stated that at the time of death, the deceased was with her and objector though wife was not taking care of him. She has further stated that she was entitled for. the properties left by her brother-deceased Kis)`ian Chand. In the cross-examination, she has stated that at the time of death, the deceased was with her and objector though wife was not taking care of him. It has been stated that the objector was party in the proceedings. She has also stated that the deceased got admitted by her in Rungta Hospital and in that regard she has produced prescription slips etc., and produced the same. It has also been stated that the Will was got prepared in her absence. She has denied the allegation that the Will was a fabricated document.AW-2 Balkishan Gupta has stated that Kishan Chand was an employee of Rajasthan Bank. The Will of Kishan Chand was read over to him thereafter he put his signatures on the Will. The Will was in favour of Smt. Ganga Devi, who is the sister of deceased Kishan Chand. The witness further stated that though the deceased at that time was ill, but he was in complete senses. He has also stated that he put signatures on the Will and at that time another witness Nandlal was also present. He also put his signatures on Will (Ex.A-1). A lengthy cross- examination has been done from this witness. The witness has stood the test of cross-examination and stated that Will was verified and attested by the Notary Public and his signatures were also obtained by the Notary Public in a register maintained by Notary Public. AW-3 Nandlal is attesting witness of the Will. He stated what AW-2 (Balkishan) has slated and nothing material has come in the cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony.AW-4 Nathuram who has proved the death certificate. He also stated that at the time when Will was reduced in writing the deceased Kishan Chand was in senses and the Will was made in favour of Smt. Ganga Devi. He has also stated that wife of Kishan Chand was not taking care of the deceased and infect it was Smt. Ganga Devi who was taking care of the deceased. It was stated that there was no issue out of the wed-lock of the deceased and the objector.AW-5 Shikar Chand Jain has stated that on 15.3.1995 Kishan Chand executed a Will in his presence on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- and on two pi-papers. It was stated that there was no issue out of the wed-lock of the deceased and the objector.AW-5 Shikar Chand Jain has stated that on 15.3.1995 Kishan Chand executed a Will in his presence on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- and on two pi-papers. The Will was reduced in writing as per the direction of the deceased. The Will was read over to the deceased. It is also stated that he typed the Will. The entries in relation to Will has been made in the entry register at Item No. 12. He has also stated that Nandlal and Balkishan were the attesting witness. He also stated about his signatures available at place G to H. He has also proved the entries made in the Register (Ex.2A). In the cross-examination he has confirmed the facts stated in the examination-in-chief nothing material has been extracted to disbelieve his testimony.AW-6 Sanjeev Upadhyay is the Notary Public. He has attested/ verified the Will. He has stated that entries were made in the register maintained by him in relation to the Will. He also proved his signatures. He has also stated that Will was read over by him to the deceased and signatures of the attesting witnesses were made in his presence. He has also stated that at page No. 3 of the Will on the cutting he had put signatures and affixed the seal. This witness has further stated that he has brought the original register in the Court. He has stated in the cross-examination that long ago the Will was executed, therefore, he was not in a position to remember as to whether the same was verified at the residence of the deceased. He has also stated that he had never put a note on such type of document when the same was executed in the Court or at the residence of a person. The witness has further stated in the cross-examination that besides Will, two more documents were also verified by him, which were the affidavits and the lqrar-Nama. 9. As against the above evidence Vimla Devi has deposed on affidavit that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and she always took care of her husband. It has also been stated that deceased was suffering from throat cancer. She has also stated that in the year 1994 the deceased was got admitted in Rungta Hospital. 9. As against the above evidence Vimla Devi has deposed on affidavit that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and she always took care of her husband. It has also been stated that deceased was suffering from throat cancer. She has also stated that in the year 1994 the deceased was got admitted in Rungta Hospital. She has also stated that in the last days of deceased he desired to visit Anwar, therefore, she took the deceased at Anwar. Therefrom the deceased was brought by her at Jaipur. She has given details of the statement of the Doctors in whose treatment the deceased remained. It has also been stated that a false and fabricated Will has been prepared. The deceased was not sound in health and he never executed any Will. In the cross-examination, she accepted that statements made on behalf of the respondent that treatment papers Exs.D-8. and D-9 were not produced by her. She has also accepted the suggestion that she has not produced any treatment papers and the bills in relation to the medicines. She has also stated that in relation to the treatment of the deceased at SMS Hospital and Rungta Hospital regarding treatment of deceased no prescription or any other material has been produced by her. 10. In view of the evidence which has been discussed above, in my opinion, sufficient material has been brought on record to draw an influence that the Will was got executed. No material has been brought on record to show that the deceased was in such mental state to presume that he was not. There appears no material brought on record to show that the deceased was mentally not capable to understand what was being done by him. On the contrary, the material brought on record suggests that at the time of execution of Will Shri Kishan Chand was in senses. 11. The witness produced by the respondent clearly stated about the execution of the Will and further about the fact that the deceased was with the respondent at the time of death. The Notary Public has verified the Will and proper entries have been made in the register maintained by him. It does not appear that Will, which was produced before the learned trial Court was fabricated document. It is not necessary to discuss the matter any further in detail. The Notary Public has verified the Will and proper entries have been made in the register maintained by him. It does not appear that Will, which was produced before the learned trial Court was fabricated document. It is not necessary to discuss the matter any further in detail. I do not find from the material available on record to draw conclusion that the learned trial Court committed illegality while deciding the Issue No. 1. The genuineness of the Will has been established by producing sufficient evidence thus, the Issue No. 1 has been decided correctly by the learned trial Court, therefore, Issue No. 2 which was depending on Issue No. 1 has been decided in favour of the respondent. 12. In the case of Damodhar Bardoloi v. Mrinalini Devi Trust Board & Ors., AIR 1999 Gauhati 53 the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati while considering the similar type of matter has discussed the law of various High Courts and Supreme Court, it has been stated in paras No. 25(5) and 25(6) that : "(5) It cannot be laid down as a matter of law that because the witness did not state in the Court that they signed the Will in presence of the testator, there was no due attestation. Thus, if a witness owing to inadvertence fails to say that he had attested the document in the presence of the testator and narrates the consequence which leads to no other inference but one that he had put his signature in the presence of the testator then his omission on the part of the witness would not invalidate the Will and it shall not preclude the Court to infer this fact from other evidence on record that the witness had signed the document in the presence of the testator. The law does not emphasise that the witness must use the language of the Section 63 to prove the requisite matters thereof." (6) In a case where attesting witnesses are produced any they give clear and cogent testimony regarding execution, one should require very strong ground to repel the effect of such testimony. It will not do to talk airily about circumstance suspicion. It will not do to talk airily about circumstance suspicion. Testimony not seriously impaired in cross-examination, something more than suspicion is necessary to discredit the testimony of attesting witnesses who may be of inferior status to make a convincing argument based on the social status of such person see Genda Kumar v. Karnandan, AIR 1916 PC 166 . In this particular case as stated above there was no effective cross-examination of the attesting witnesses as well as of the scribe. There was no plea regarding lack of testamentary capacity in the objection. The learned Judge found that the Will was properly executed, attested and there was no suspicious circumstance. On and overall view of the matter and on consideration of the evidence on record as indicated above, I agree, with the findings of the learned judge." 13. Thus, it appears that even if there are slight variation in the testimony of witnesses then also it cannot be a ground to reject the evidence unless it is a satisfactory manner by producing material to show that the testimony of the witnesses produced is not reliable. In the present case, the witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and their testimony has not been impeached. 14. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned District judge committed no illegality in appreciating the evidence while deciding issues framed in the case and granting letter of administration/probate in favour of respondent. There appears no merit in this miscellaneous appeal and the same requires to be dismissed.In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******