Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 770 (GAU)

Mrinalini Deb Barma v. Upama Deb Barma

2007-11-27

A.B.PAL

body2007
JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. One Bidyut Prabha Debbarma died on 1.12.1995 survived by four sons and three daughters. Her husband predeceased her. During her life time all the sons and daughters were married and living in their individual separate houses. She was old, ailing and lonely in her house for a considerable period before her death. Only one daughter, Smt. Upama Debbarma (the first Respondent herein) who was a staff nurse under the Health Family Welfare Department of the State Government served her mother with dedication. Oilier survivors were indifferent towards their mother. They hardly visited her. She was the owner of certain landed properties. Except the house where she was living all such properties were transferred by her to her sons. 2. The house she was living in covered an area of seven gandas. The love, respect and dedication of her daughter upama actuated her to execute a Will to bequeath the house to that daughter. The Will was drafted by Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, an advocate by profession (P.W-3). The Will was executed by Smt. Bidyut Prabha Debt on 15.2.1989 in presence of Hirendra Chandra Debbarma (P.W-2). The other witness Jagatendra Debbarma (now deceased) signed as witness on 16.2.1989. After the death of the executor in 1995 Upama Debbarma came to know about the Will in her favour and consequently applied for probate of the Will under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in the court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala arraying all the other brothers and sisters as Respondents-opposite parties. Of the six opposite parties only Utpal Debbarma, the eldest brother, contested the prayer for probate. Others did not appear to raise objection. 3. The suit for probate was filed in 1996. In 1998 Utpal Debbarma died. Hi's legal heirs Smt. Mrinalini Debbarma (wife), Ms. Barnali Debbarma (daughter) and Sri Nioranjan Debbarma (son) were substituted as opposite parties in place of Utpal Debbarma. The Petitioner Uparna Debbarma examined herself (P.W-1), Sri Hirendra Chandra Debbarma (P.W.2) and Dr. U.K. Bhattacharjee (P.W.3). The other attesting witness Jagatendra Debbarma was no more. Taking into account the Will in question and the deposition of the witnesses the learned District Judge allowed the petition granting probate to the Petitioner in respect of the lands and building standing thereon as detailed in the Will. 4. U.K. Bhattacharjee (P.W.3). The other attesting witness Jagatendra Debbarma was no more. Taking into account the Will in question and the deposition of the witnesses the learned District Judge allowed the petition granting probate to the Petitioner in respect of the lands and building standing thereon as detailed in the Will. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.1.2001 in MISC (Probate) 6 of 1996 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala granting probate, the legal heirs of Utpal Debbarma have preferred this appeal calling into question the legality and correctness of the judgment impugned. 5. I have heard Mr. Shekhar Datta, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. P.K. Pal, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 6. Before adverting to the challenge thrown to the judgment impugned, it would be worthwhile to notice the nature of the stand adopted in the written objection filed by Utpal Debbarma (O.P No. 4). It was contended, inter alia, that the Will being unregistered one is not reliable. It is a fictitious and forged document being out come of a collusion between the Petitioner and other legal heirs of the executor to deprive him from his share. He claimed that as her eldest son he used to look after his mother. The Petitioner being seriously ill was forced to take voluntary retirement from service. She could never look after the old mother. According to him out of the lands in question one and half ganda was already transferred by the deceased mother to one Kaushal Debbarma on 25.3.1991 by a registered deed which would show that the Will for the entire land is not at all genuine, in a separate prayer for appointment of a receiver filed on 12/8/196 the said Opposite party stated that a part of the said land was in occupation of one Amarendra Jamatia, who was paying monthly rent of Rs. 500 to Nirmalendu Debbarma, another son of the executor Bidyut Prabha Debbarma. The other part of the said land has been occupation of the Kalikinkar Debbarma, another son of the executor, who was receiving Rs. 200 per month as a rent. Thus, according to the version of Utpal Debbarma, the lands covered by the Will were under the occupation of Nirmalendu Debbarma and Kalikinkar Debbarma. But both of them entered into a collusive deal with the Petitioner-Respondent herein to illegally get a probate in favour of Upama Debbarma. 7. 200 per month as a rent. Thus, according to the version of Utpal Debbarma, the lands covered by the Will were under the occupation of Nirmalendu Debbarma and Kalikinkar Debbarma. But both of them entered into a collusive deal with the Petitioner-Respondent herein to illegally get a probate in favour of Upama Debbarma. 7. Utpal Debbarma, however, admitted that his mother transferred certain lands by registered deed for valuable consideration of Rs. 70,000 in the year 1985. Another contention raised in the written objection is that the deceased mother was illiterate. She put right thumb impression on the transfer deed in the year 1991, but two years before that day, on 15.2.1989 how could she put her signature on the Will? This question looming large, the declaration of the only surviving attesting witness has been stated to be false and baseless. 8. It would thus appear from the written objection of Uptal Debbarma that he had never possessed the lands in dispute or any part thereof. According to him his other two brothers Nirmalendu Debbarma and Kalikinkar Debbarma were in occupation of the said property through their tenants. But none of them, though duly served, appeared and contested the claim for probate made by Smt. Upama Debbarma the first Respondent herein. As regards the contention that one Kaushal Debbarma purchased 1 1/2 gandas of land out of the lands in dispute in the year 1991 after the execution of the Will in 1989 need not be separately adverted to in this proceeding for the reason that said Kaushal Debbarma was not made a party in the said proceeding and did not perhaps feel threatened by the Will. Thus, the above contention of Utpal Debbarma about his other two brothers and Kaushal Debbarma carries no value to strengthen his case. What thus remains to be adverted to is about the genuineness of the 'Will', particularly whether it was executed by Bidyut Prabha Debbarma in accordance with the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925. 9. Mr. Datta, learned Counsel for the Appellants made a robust submission that the Will cannot be accepted as genuine for the following reasons: (i) The executor was illiterate which is evident from the facts that in 1991 she executed a sale deed in favour of the Kaushal Debbarma by putting her right thumb impression. 9. Mr. Datta, learned Counsel for the Appellants made a robust submission that the Will cannot be accepted as genuine for the following reasons: (i) The executor was illiterate which is evident from the facts that in 1991 she executed a sale deed in favour of the Kaushal Debbarma by putting her right thumb impression. If she was unable to sign her name even in 1991, it is difficult to believe that she had signed on the Will in the year 1989, about two years before execution of the sale deed. Thus her signature on the Will in question is not free from suspicion. In respect of this submission it can be said, as rightly submitted by Mr. Pal, that the 'Will' also bears her thumb impression. Besides, thumb impression on a document is not the definite indication that the person is illiterate. Even when a person is literate and knows to write, thumb impression in often obtained on important document like sale deed. It needs no long argument to declare that while signature is not a sure proof of identity of a person, his thumb impression surely is, the same being an exact science, unlike the former. That apart, the sale deed executed by her in 1991 in favour of Kaushal Debbarma has not been exhibited, nor Kaushawl Debbarma has been examined to substantiate this contention; (ii) The recital in the Will shows 15.5.1989 as the date of its making. But below the signature of the executor and attesting witnesses the date is 15.2.1959. The contention of Mr. Dutta is that if the Will was executed on 15.2.1989 how it could be written on 15.5.1989, three months after its execution? Though it would no about appear that two different dates are there in the Will, the date given by the executor and the attesting witnesses has to be taken as the date of execution. The other date at the beginning of the recital seems to be a bona fide error due to oversight if the materials on record are given a closer and careful examination. Such an error of inadvertence nullify the validity of the Will. It is nobody's case that the Will was executed on 15.2.1989 and then written on 15.5.1989; (iii) According to provision of Section 63 of the Succession Act, a testator must sign the Will before the attesting witnesses sing. Such an error of inadvertence nullify the validity of the Will. It is nobody's case that the Will was executed on 15.2.1989 and then written on 15.5.1989; (iii) According to provision of Section 63 of the Succession Act, a testator must sign the Will before the attesting witnesses sing. But a perusal of the evidence on record would show that he attesting witness Hirendra Chandra Debbarma first put his signature on the Will in presence of the executor followed by the scribe, Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee. Only thereafter the executor, Bidyut Prabha Debbarma, put her signature on the deed. This being contrary to Section 63of the Succession Act renders the deed invalid, Mr. Datta submits. This contention does not appear to carry much weight firstly for the reasons that Section 63 of the said Act does not specifically say who should sign first. It merely says that executor and the witnesses must sign in presence of each other. Besides, the attesting witness or the scribe did not say who signed the Will first. The relevant part of the statement of the attesting witness (P.W-2) reads as follows: "personally read over the contents of the, deed and then I put my signature as witness in the house of the advocate Sri. Hiren Kumar Bhattacharjee. I read over the contents of the deed to my maternal aunt Bidyut Prabha Debi in the house of the said advocate. After hearing the contents of the deed from me my said aunt found that the deed was correctly written and then she put her signature on the deed in the house of that advocate Sri H.K. Bhattacharjee. I am presently physically not fit. I cannot recollect anything like before, but can recollect the main facts". This statement does not show the order of putting signature on the Will. As regards the question whether she was literate and able to sign, his answer is "my maternal aunt Bidyut Prabha Debi could write her name, but why she did not write her name in full on the important, document, that I cannot say". According to this witness Bidyut Prabha was physically and mentally fit when the deed was executed by her. 10. Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee (P.W.3) in his deposition stated that he drafted the Will in favour of the Smt. Upama Debbarma which was, however, typed by his clerk. According to this witness Bidyut Prabha was physically and mentally fit when the deed was executed by her. 10. Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee (P.W.3) in his deposition stated that he drafted the Will in favour of the Smt. Upama Debbarma which was, however, typed by his clerk. He has not stated who signed the Will first or who sighed-later. The relevant part of his deposition reads: "Accordingly as per her request I have drafted the Will in respect of the properties of Bidyut Prava Devi. By that Will the testator Bidyut Prabha bequeathed the property in favour of Smt. Upama Debbarma who is the daughter of the testator. On 15.2.1989 Bidyut Prava Devi and her witness Hirendra Ch. Debbarma came to my house. I have read over the Will to them and on being satisfied Bidyut Prava Devi executed the Will in my presence. The witness Hirendra Debbarma also put his signature in the Will as witness in my presence. On 16.2.1989 another witness named Jagatendra Debbarma came to my house. I have again read over the content of the Will and the witness Jagatendra Debbarma put his signature in my presence. Bidyut Prava executed the Will in my presence by putting her thumb impression in my presence". It would appear from the above that this important witness has not state that the attesting witnesses signed first followed by the executor. 11. As I have discussed above, Section 63 of the Act does not provide who should first sign on the Will. It would be enough compliance with the said provision if the executor and the attesting witness signed in presence of each other Section 63 provides as follows: 63. Execution of unprivileged wills.- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition nor engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules: (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix fits 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. (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 his mark 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 the 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. 12. This provision nowhere provides who would first sign on the will except saying that the executor and the witness shall sign in presence of each other. In the case on hand, though, there is no reason to doubt that the executor signed the Will first. Even acknowledgement of execution of a Will and signing by the attesting-witnesses thereafter would be enough compliance of the above provision. As has been seen, the second attesting witness, who was not alive to depose before the learned trial court, signed on the following day (16.2.1989), as stated by the scribe, Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee (P.W-3), indicating again that he signed in presence of the executor. Though nothing specifically has been stated about acknowledgement of the thumb impression already given by the executor on 15.2.1989, in the absence of any specific contention with supporting proof to the contrary, the only presumption would be that she had acknowledged execution of the Will and thereafter the second witness put his signature in her presence on 16.2.1989. In my considered view this would be substantial compliance of the above provision. 13. What is significant to notice is the failure of the Appellants to adduce any evidence, oral or documentary in support of the plea that the 'Will' is forged and fictitious. Even none of the Appellants who are legal heirs of Utpal Debbarma has been examined. It is well settled that a mere plea taken in a written objection is not enough to prove the same. Even none of the Appellants who are legal heirs of Utpal Debbarma has been examined. It is well settled that a mere plea taken in a written objection is not enough to prove the same. It is always the duty of the person taking such plea to bring on record oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the stand taken. The only substantive plea is that no such Will was ever executed by Bidyut Prava Devi in support of which nothing is available on record. There is another plea that though the Will is genuine but the same is the product of undue influence upon the executor. But this point has been placed during the course of argument only, not before. In the absence of any such plea with supporting evidence such an argument is definitely misplaced. 14. Mr. Datta, learned Counsel for the Appellants, seeks to place reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court some of which are now to be looked into in order to see whether they are relevant to the issues this Court is confronted with. 15. Mr. Datta has pointed out that at the time of execution of the Will only PW-2 was present as attesting witness. The other attesting witness was absent. This version of Mr. Datta gets support from the scribe of the Will (PW-3). According to PW-3 the second attesting witness put his signature on the following day, i.e., on 16.2.1989. As already noticed, that witness being dead only the first attesting witness could be examined by the court. But it is seen that in the recitals of the Will the testatrix declared that she had signed the Will on 15.2.1989 in presence of witnesses noted below who all have signed along with her at the same time and in presence of each other. None of the two attesting witnesses gave a date below their signature. Only the scribe, Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, advocate put his signature with the same date. Thus, the version of the testatrix in the Will itself is in conflict with the first attesting witness and the scribe regarding date of signing by the second attesting witness. None of the two attesting witnesses gave a date below their signature. Only the scribe, Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, advocate put his signature with the same date. Thus, the version of the testatrix in the Will itself is in conflict with the first attesting witness and the scribe regarding date of signing by the second attesting witness. But, both the testatrix and the second attesting witness being dead the Will itself only stands counter to the aforesaid version of the first attesting witness and the scribe on this particular point regarding date of signing the Will by the second attesting witness. The conflict is between documentary evidence and oral evidence. Taking clue from this conflict, Mr. Datta would argue that the second attesting witness having not signed on the same day in presence of the testatrix the Will has no compliance with the requirement of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. In Janki Narayan Enoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam 2003 (2) SCC 91 only on of the two attesting witnesses was examined though the other attesting witness was alive and available. The attesting witness examined failed to prove attestation of the 'Will' by the other attesting witness. It was held that the mandatory requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied and, therefore, Section 71 of the Evidence Act could not be attracted, The Apex Court observed: Section 68 of the Evidence Act gives a concession to those who want to prove and establish a Will in a court of law by examining at least one attesting witness even though the Will has to be attested at least by two attesting witnesses mandatory under Section 63 of the Succession Act. But what is significant and to be noted is that one attesting witness examined should be in a position to prove the execution of a Will. To put in other words if one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will in terms of Clause (c) of Section 63 viz., attestation by two attesting witness in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of the other attesting witness can be dispensed with. The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the attestation of a Will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove there was due execution of the Will. The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the attestation of a Will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove there was due execution of the Will. If the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not. in his evidence, satisfy the requirement of attestation of the Will by the other witness also it fail short attestation of Will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the Will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required under Section 63of the Succession Act. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove due to execution of the Will then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to prove the attestation of the Will by the other witness there will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of the Section68 of the Evidence Act. The case at hand is factually distinguishable from Janki Narayan inasmuch as one of the two attesting witness was dead when the probate proceeding was before the learned court. Mr. Datta submits that as the only attesting witness examined clearly stated that the other attesting witness did not sign in his presence by saying that he was a lone attesting witness on 15/2/1989, it has to be held that the mandatory requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act has not been complied with and, therefore, the Will cannot be acted upon. But this decision cannot be pressed into service for the reason that the second attesting witness who signed on the following day was already dead and in such a situation the question of examining both the attesting witnesses did not arise. In such a situation the declaration of the executor in the Will itself that both the attesting witnesses signed in her presence and she signed in their presence on the same date would carry more credence particularly because both she and the second attesting witness were no more during the probate proceeding and that deceased witness did not give any date below his signature. Besides, Section 63 of the Succession Act itself clearly provides that it is not necessary that both attesting witnesses have to sign the Will oil the same day though the requirement is that they must sign in presence of the testatrix. Even if it is believed that the second attesting witness signed on 16.2.1989 as stated by the PW-2 and PW-3 from their memory of which PW-2 was not very sure, there is no definite proof to discard declaration of the executor and hold that the second attesting witness did not sign in her presence. It is not necessary to emphasise that the testatrix need not sign again on the following day in presence of the second attesting witness as she had already signed on the previous day so what is necessary is acknowledgement by her that she had already signed on the Will whereafter the second attesting witness should put signature. From the deposition of the PW-3 enough indication is there that the second attesting witness signed the Will in presence of both the testatrix and the scribe. 16. In Meenakshiammal (dead) through LRS. and Ors. v. Chandrasekaran and Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 280 , the Apex Court observed that: the onus of proving Will is on the profounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, is sufficient to discharge onus. In the present case the objector son has not raised any question about testamentary capacity of his mother. The Will was executed in 1989 and she died in 1995. The attesting witness (PW-2) has stated in his deposition that she was physically and mentally sound at the relevant time. She being his aunt disclosed to him that none of her children except the Petitioner daughter was taking any care of her. She had already distributed her other properties to her sons and she had decided to execute Will in respect of the property in question in favour of the Petitioner daughter for the service rendered by her. Thus, it cannot be said that execution of the Will only for a small plot of land and a building in favour of her own daughter after distributing other properties to her sons is at all unusual and, therefore, there is nothing to suspect the genuineness of the Will. 17. Thus, it cannot be said that execution of the Will only for a small plot of land and a building in favour of her own daughter after distributing other properties to her sons is at all unusual and, therefore, there is nothing to suspect the genuineness of the Will. 17. The question whether the registrar/scribe of a Will can also be an attesting witness has been examined by the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram and Anr. v. Suresh and Ors. 2003 (12) SCC 35 . It has been observed in para 17 that to be an attesting witness it is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, i.e., for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgement of his signature. If a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose, e.g., to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness. It is not necessary that the word "attesting witness" has to be written against the signature of the witness. A person becomes an attesting witness if he states that he has put his signature for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign. In the present case a perusal of the Will would show that the word "attesting" is absent and below the recital that the testatrix signed in presence of witnesses and the witnesses have signed in her presence appears only below her left thumb impression taken by the first attesting witness. Though Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, advocate, has stated in his deposition that he is the scribe of the Will, he has also stated that in his presence the testatrix and the attesting witnesses signed. Thus he is not only a scribe but also a witness who has seen the testatrix signed the Will. He read over the contents of the Will to the second attesting witness and in his presence that attesting witness also put his signature. This witness, though a scribe, cannot be placed similar to a Registrar of a Will. Thus he is not only a scribe but also a witness who has seen the testatrix signed the Will. He read over the contents of the Will to the second attesting witness and in his presence that attesting witness also put his signature. This witness, though a scribe, cannot be placed similar to a Registrar of a Will. The role played by the scribe here reading of over contents of the will to the testatrix as well as the attesting witness and seeing them sign in his presence places him to a higher pedestal, if not the same position as that of the attesting witnesses. 18. Though Mr. Datta has taken me through the decision of the Apex Court in Benga Behera and Anr. v. Vraja Kishore Nanda and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1975 to bring home his point that a scribe cannot be given any credence with regard to execution of the deed, it would appear from the observation made in para 20 that the factum of the said case is entirely different from the one in hand. In that case the original Will was not produced and beneficiary was a complete stranger to the family of the testatrix. The attesting witness has signed the Will before the testatrix and all these circumstances taken together created a suspicion which could not be displayed by the propounded Therefore, this decision cannot be pressed to serve in the present case. 19. The upshot of the above discussions may now be noted below: (i) The 'Will' was executed in 1989 and the testatrix died in 1995. She along with the only surviving attesting witness (PW-2), visited more than once the house of the Scribe (PW-3) for the purpose of executing the Will. According to PW2 she was physically and mentally sound and she disclosed to him the reasons for bequeathing the plot of land and structure standing thereon in favour of her daughter Upama Debbarma who was looking after her. She expressed her anguish that other sons and daughters were totally indifferent towards her. She also justified her action saying hat she had distributed other properties to her sons. Daring the period of six years between the date of execution of the Will and the death of the testatrix the objector son Utpal Debbarma did not raise any objection. She expressed her anguish that other sons and daughters were totally indifferent towards her. She also justified her action saying hat she had distributed other properties to her sons. Daring the period of six years between the date of execution of the Will and the death of the testatrix the objector son Utpal Debbarma did not raise any objection. None of the other sons and daughters raised any objection during this period and during the probate proceeding; (ii) The attesting witness (PW-2) has testified that in his presence the testatrix signed and he also signed in her presence. This has been supported by the scribe (PW-3). Though PW-3 stated that the other witness was not present on the days he signed, he, however, stated that the second attesting witness signed on the following day presumably after seeing acknowledgement from the testatrix; (iii) The only objection of the objector-son was that the Will was a forged document. In other words his mother did not execute the Will. In support of this contention no documentary or oral evidence was brought on record. In the face of the deposition of the PWs-2 and 3 it is not possible to accept the contention that the Will was not executed by the testatrix; (iv) The propounder, Smt. Upama Debbarma did not take active part in execution of Will in 1989. Only after the death of her mother she came to know about the Will and applied for probate. Thus, she has no special responsibility to remove any suspicion, if at all exist; (v) Though the Will does not show that the testatrix and the witnesses signed on different dates and according to the recital at the end, both the testatrix and the attesting witnesses signed on the same day in presence of each other, according to PW-2 and PW-3 the second attesting witness signed on 16.2.1989. Such oral testimony against documentary evidence cannot, by itself create, suspicion about execution of the deed by the testatrix. Law permits the attesting witnesses to sign on different dates though the same must be in presence of the testatrix. From the deposition of the scribe it is evident that the second attesting witness signed in presence of the executor and the scribe; (vi) The scribe being an advocate played active role in execution of the deed. Law permits the attesting witnesses to sign on different dates though the same must be in presence of the testatrix. From the deposition of the scribe it is evident that the second attesting witness signed in presence of the executor and the scribe; (vi) The scribe being an advocate played active role in execution of the deed. According to him the testatrix signed in his presence whereafter he also signed the same. Both the attesting witnesses also signed in his presence. Thus he stands in the position of an attesting witness; (vii) The second attesting witness admittedly being dead, argument on non examination of that witness is of no merit. The evidence of the surviving attesting witness and of the scribe are therefore, to be accepted as enough proof about execution of the deed; (viii) There is no credible and reliable circumstance to suspect execution of the deed in favour of the one of the daughters of the testatrix; (ix) Neither the objector nor his legal heirs, who are Appellants herein, have examined themselves as witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence have been placed on record to support the contention that the testatrix did not execute the Will and the same is a false and forged document; 20. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the circumstances aforementioned came to the conclusion that the Will is a genuine document, duly executed and attested. Therefore, the Petitioner-Respondent is entitled to get a probate of the same. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said decision. In view of the above, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed without any order as to cost. Appeal dismissed