Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE. J. Subject appeal would center around a Will sought to be executed by one Joy Narayan Sen, a contractor by occupation, residing in the district of Midnapore now Pachim Midnapore Joy Narayan Sen had his wife, one son and four daughters. The son was married having his wife, one son and one daughter. Out of four daughters; two were unmarried being Kanchan Sen and Tapati Sen. Joy Narayan Sen executed the Will on January 8, 1958. Reading the Will we find that he bequeathed all his immovable properties to his son subject to the life interest of his wife and daughters, specially two younger daughters remaining unmarried at that time. He also made provisions of Rs. 2000/- as marriage expenses for his two younger daughters and entrusted his wife with such sum. The Will written in vernacular would provide for such marriage expenses. It was however not clear whether the amount had already been separately entrusted to his wife or bequeathed through the said instrument. Be that as it may, he executed the Will giving exclusive ownership ultimately to his only son Bhabani Sankar Sen making him the executor of the same. He died few days after such execution. He died on March 9, 1958. At the time of death of Joy Narayan Sen both the daughters being Kanchan and Tapati were minor. Kanchan attained majority soon after the death of Joy Narayan whereas Tapati attained majority in 1965. Bhabani Sankar applied for Probate in 1959 wherein the widow appeared on her behalf as well as on behalf of both the minor daughters as their natural guardian and consented to the Probate being granted in favour of Bhabani Sankar. Learned District Judge accordingly granted Probate on August 12, 1959. By virtue of the Probate, Bhabani Sankar became the absolute owner of the entire property to the exclusion of the all the natural heirs subject however, the life interest of the widow and two minor daughters. The dispute arose in 1976 in between the Bhabani Sankar and his two unmarried sisters who by that time attained majority. They became educated and got themselves employed as teachers. Tapati retired on January 31, 2008 whereas Kanchan retired in 2002. The extent of dispute between the brother and sisters in 1976, is however not clear to us. The dispute arose in 1976 in between the Bhabani Sankar and his two unmarried sisters who by that time attained majority. They became educated and got themselves employed as teachers. Tapati retired on January 31, 2008 whereas Kanchan retired in 2002. The extent of dispute between the brother and sisters in 1976, is however not clear to us. We find that the sisters approached the learned District Judge for revocations of the probate vide application dated December 16, 1977. In the said application they contended that they were minors and taking advantage of their minority Bhabani Sankar got Probate of the Will was unnatural. They were not aware of the Will until they were served with the Writ of Summons in a partition suit filed by Bhabani Sankar against them being Title Suit No. 28 of 1976. We specifically asked for a copy of the plaint from the learned counsel. They were however unable to provide with the same. As a result, we did not get any idea as to the nature of the dispute parties had in 1976 and the reason for filing of the suit. We also do not understand as to how Bhabani Sankar could file a partition suit when he was the absolute owner of the entire estate left by his father through his Will that got probated in 1959. From the records we also find that one of the married sister Bhakti Puspa Laha deposed as PW-2. Bhakti Puspa supported the Will. She also proved the execution by certifying execution of the same by her father in presence of all attesting witnesses. She however deposed that she was not present at the time of registration of the Will. Pertinent to note, it came out in evidence that Bhakti Puspa had matrimonial discord that compelled her to come back to her parental home and become dependant on her brother Bhabani Sankar who was conducting the litigation on her behalf. It also came out in evidence that when Bhakti Puspa deposed in Court she was longer staying with Bhabani. After the death of her husband she was living along with her daughter. Upon considering the evidence on record the learned Judge allowed the application vide Judgment an Order dated May 31, 2002. The learned Judge held that the application was not barred by limitation as the applicants were minor at the time when the Will was probated. After the death of her husband she was living along with her daughter. Upon considering the evidence on record the learned Judge allowed the application vide Judgment an Order dated May 31, 2002. The learned Judge held that the application was not barred by limitation as the applicants were minor at the time when the Will was probated. They were also not aware of the Will or the Probate until they were served with the Writ of Summons on August 6, 1977 in Title Suit No. 28 of 1976. The learned Judge held that it was a case of suspicious circumstances and the propounder would have to dispel the doubt raised by the applicants. The learned Judge considered the evidence of Bhakti Puspa, he considered the fact that Bhakti Puspa had stayed together with her brother for a long time. Bhabani Sankar also looked after the litigation with her husband. So she had obligation towards Bhabani Sankar that could not be ruled out. The learned Judge also observed that Bhakti Puspa did not specifically identify the signature of her father. She was not definite. The learned Judge also examined the signature of Joy Sankar appearing in the Will along with his signatures on the admitted documents being the rent receipts and found “Gulf difference”. The Sub-Registrar registered the Will on the evidence of Bhakti Puspa as the other attesting witnesses did not appear before him. Bhakti Puspa denied of being present at the time of registration. The learned Judge also observed that Gauri Bala, the mother and Ajit Kumar Chowdhary one of the attesting witnesses were alive on November 15, 1979. They were not examined. Pertinent to note, the matter was initially heard by the learned Judge when vide Judgment an Order dated October 31, 1979 the learned Judge revoked the probate & asked Bhabani to produce the attesting witnesses in Court to dispel the doubt raised in the mind of the Court. Bhabani Sankar did not contemporaneously act upon the same. Gouri Bala and Ajit Kumar Chowdhury were not produced during their lifetime. The learned Judge observed that there was apprehension of practicing of fraud. The Probate was revoked, hence this appeal by Ankur Kumar Sen, son of Bhabani Sankar who died in the meantime. We heard the appeal on the above mentioned dates. Mr. Gouri Bala and Ajit Kumar Chowdhury were not produced during their lifetime. The learned Judge observed that there was apprehension of practicing of fraud. The Probate was revoked, hence this appeal by Ankur Kumar Sen, son of Bhabani Sankar who died in the meantime. We heard the appeal on the above mentioned dates. Mr. Rabindra Nath Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Probate was granted with consent of all natural heirs. Hence, there was no reason for revocation. On merit, Mr. Mahato contended that Bhabani brought up both the sisters & got them educated. They were not married. At the instance Kanchan Sen and Tapati Sen, Mother and son were driven out of the house. The sisters initiated criminal case against Bhabani Sankar, which did not have any logical conclusion as yet. Taking advantage of the situation, the sisters took possession of the ornaments belonging to his mother that gave rise to filing of the partition suit being Title Suit No. 28 of 1976. He asserted that there was no suspicious circumstance as erroneously held by the learned Judge. Mr. Mahato also contended that the testator executed the Will in 1958 when right of the female members of the Hindu family was not recognized. The socio-economic situation prevalent at that point of time would rather support the Will, that could not be said to be unnatural. He prayed for setting aside of the Judgment and Order revoking the Probate. Opposing the appeal Mr. Ashish Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for Kanchan Sen, contended that the learned Judge very rightly held that the suspicious circumstances would raise doubt in the mind of Court that were not dispelled by the propounder. Hence, Probate was liable to be revoked. He further contended that the testator had died few days after execution of the Will that would suddenly raise suspicion. On the support of the mother, Mr. Sanyal contended that the mother being Pardanoshin lady was under the influence of her major son. She was not literate enough to understand the purport of the affidavit which she signed. Hence, the minors’ interest was not properly looked after. He also contended that evidence of Bhakti Puspa should be considered carefully as she was under the influence of her brother to whom she was obligated. Mr. Sanyal also distinguished the decision citied by Mr. She was not literate enough to understand the purport of the affidavit which she signed. Hence, the minors’ interest was not properly looked after. He also contended that evidence of Bhakti Puspa should be considered carefully as she was under the influence of her brother to whom she was obligated. Mr. Sanyal also distinguished the decision citied by Mr. Mahato reported in All India Reporter Supreme Court P-1742 (Ram Piari –Vs- Bhagwant) Mr. Sujoy Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for Tapati adopted the submission made by Mr. Sanyal. In addition, he relied on Apex Court decision in the case of All India Reporter 1971 Supreme Court P-2236 Volume- 58 C- 473 (Smt. Sushila Devi –Vs-Pandit Krishna Kumar Missir) and in the case of Hazara Bradri –VS- Lokesh Dutta Multani reported in 2005 Volume-XIII Supreme Court Cases Page-278 We have considered the rival contentions. We are in full agreement with the learned Judge on the onus of proof. Following facts, in our view, would obviously raise suspicious circumstances: i) Will excluded two minor sisters who were minor & unmarried. ii) The mother gave consent to the Will being probated without making any provision either for the marriage of the unmarried daughters or for their future. iii) Bhakti Puspa Laha was obligated to Bhabani Sankar Sen. Her evidence, without any corroboration, was not safe to be relied upon. iv) Bhabani Sankar did not produce Gouribala or Ajit Kumar Chowdhury to support the Will. v) Once the Will got probated and Bhabani got the entire estate of Joy Shankar there could be no occasion for Bhabani to file partition suit. Pertinent to note, copy of the plaint was never produced before us. Bhabani Sankar failed to dispel such doubt. He did not have any satisfactory explanation as to why he could not produce Gouribala and/or Ajit Kumar on November 15 1979 when the matter was fixed before the Court. Moreover, he could have applied for appointment of Commissioner to record their evidence during their lifetime. He waited till they breathed last and then produced Bhakti Puspa who was obligated to him. In course of hearing, we specifically asked Mr. Mahato whether Bhabani made any provision for the marriage expenses which Joysankar purportedly made in his Will in 1958. We did not get any satisfactory answer as to what had happened to Rs. 2000/- as mentioned in the Will of 1958. In course of hearing, we specifically asked Mr. Mahato whether Bhabani made any provision for the marriage expenses which Joysankar purportedly made in his Will in 1958. We did not get any satisfactory answer as to what had happened to Rs. 2000/- as mentioned in the Will of 1958. The learned Judge rightly revoked the Probate. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.