Judgment :- I.P. MUKERJI, J. This is an application by a Shahjad Ahmed. He is the son of late Wajid Ali, who was a Mohammedan belonging to the Shia school. He seeks revocation of the grant of probate made by this court, on 21st February, 2007 in an application for such grant being PLA No. 2 of 2007. The disputed will is dated 10th February, 1992. The bequest which has occasioned this application is this. The alleged testator Wajid Ali bequeathed to State Bank of India Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the entire property described in the schedule to the will. The schedule had two parts, namely, part (i) and (ii) comprising of 63/1 and 63/2 Christopher Road, Calcutta – 46 (now Kolkata). Kanailal Chatterjee stated to be a friend and business partner of the testator of 2B Dinobandhu Lane, Kolkata – 6 was appointed as the sole executor. The alleged testator died on 1st March, 1992.The application for probate was made on 3rd January, 2007, nearly fifteen years thereafter. Probate was obtained in common form on 21st February, 2007 by allegedly obtaining the consent affidavits of the heirs of the alleged testator who would have succeeded on intestacy declaring that they had no objection to the grant of probate being made to the executor. Such heirs were declared in paragraph three of the application for grant of probate. The heirs mentioned are as follows: It is alleged that the particulars in this table are incorrect. Shamim Ahmed, shown against Sl. No. (iii) was the son of the alleged testator, had died long ago on 6th August, 1999. Hence, his affidavit of consent was forged. Husnara Khatoon Sl. No. (i) lives in Bangalore; Shamshed Ahmed, sl. No. (ii) lives in Gold Coast Australia. With regard to Sl. No. (v), there is no person by the name of Sonny Ahmed. There is no person by the name of Syid Ahmed against Sl. No. (vi), but there is a person by name of Shayad Nayyer. With regard to Sl. No. (vii) it is stated that Ishrattara, and not Mrs. Gita Ahmed is the widow of late Sultan Ahmed. When Shamim Ahmed had died his heirs ought to have been included. Consequently, the consent affidavits are all forged. Before going into the details of the consent affidavits, the primary challenge has to be met. It is alleged that the will is forged. Gita Ahmed is the widow of late Sultan Ahmed. When Shamim Ahmed had died his heirs ought to have been included. Consequently, the consent affidavits are all forged. Before going into the details of the consent affidavits, the primary challenge has to be met. It is alleged that the will is forged. I am shown the will from pages 38 to pages 44 of the petition. It is said to be signed by the testator Wajid Ali, whose signature appears at page 44. Comparison is made of that signature with that in the deed of partnership dated 2nd April, 1990 between Wajid Ali and Sultan Ahmed. The signature of Wajid Ali appears on the last page of the partnership deed at page 158. It is said that this signature is considerably at variance with the signature in the will. The will is said to be attested by two witnesses, one of whom is Sultan Ahmed, whose signature appears in the attestation part of the will at page 44. A comparison is sought to be made of that signature with the signature of Sultan Ahmed recorded in his passport, a copy of which is at page 134 of the petition. It is said that both these signatures are considerably variant. I have considered the signature of the alleged testator on the last page of the will with his signature on the partnership deed. Both the documents are more or less contemporaneous, the partnership deed, having been executed on 2nd April, 1990 and the will said to have been executed on 10th February, 1992. There is a considerable difference in these two signatures. Similar is my opinion with regard to the difference in the signature of Sultan Ahmed on the last page of the will at page 44 with that of his passport at page 134. The authenticity of signatures of the testator and the attesting witness can only be established in a trial on evidence. But at this stage the court can form only a prima facie opinion. My prima facie opinion is that the two signatures of Wajid Ali do not match each other. Neither do the two signatures of Sultan Ahmed. Now I come to the consent affidavits. The consent affidavit of Shamim Ahmed is said to have been affirmed by a notary public at Kolkata on 3rd January, 2007. My prima facie opinion is that the two signatures of Wajid Ali do not match each other. Neither do the two signatures of Sultan Ahmed. Now I come to the consent affidavits. The consent affidavit of Shamim Ahmed is said to have been affirmed by a notary public at Kolkata on 3rd January, 2007. I have been shown a copy of a death certificate issued by the department of Public Health, Vellore Municipality at page 100 of the petition stating that Shamim Ahmed had died on 6th August, 1999. The name of his father is stated to be Wajid Ali. I tend to accept such evidence and form the opinion that the consent affidavit of Shamim Ahmed at page 69 of the application is not a genuine document. There is no denial in the affidavit-in-opposition of the other discrepancy pointed out with regard to the name and address of the heirs declared in paragraph 3 of the application for grant of probate, discussed above. Therefore, the address at which Husnara Khatoon and Shamshed Ahmed reside at 49, Devendra Road, Kolkata – 700 015 is to be disbelieved. Their alleged consent affidavits also are to be disbelieved. It is also to be accepted that Sonny Ahmed, Syid Ahmed and Mrs. Gita Ahmed are not the real heirs of the testator as represented as there are discrepancies in the names. So their consent affidavits are also to be disbelieved. In fact, my attention was drawn to a Civil Revisional Application filed in this court being C.O. No. 7053(W) of 1990 relating to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 preferred by Wajid Ali and some of his heirs. This is annexure ‘J’ to the application. The addresses of the heirs of Wajid Ali, namely, Husnara Khatoon, Shamshed Ahmed, Shamim Ahmed and Shahzad Ahmed are very much different from those shown at page 49 of the petition. The residential address of Husnara Khatoon was in Bangalore of Shamshed Ahmed in Bangalore, of Shamim Ahmed in Madras and Shahzad Ahmed in Madras. Now, according to the submissions made Shamshed Ahmed is residing in Gold Coast Australia, Shahzad continues to reside in Chennai whereas Shamim is dead. Mr. Ahin Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent showed me a passage from Paruck on Succession, 7th Edition, page 102 to submit that a Mohammedan will may be in any form oral or in writing. Mr. Ahin Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent showed me a passage from Paruck on Succession, 7th Edition, page 102 to submit that a Mohammedan will may be in any form oral or in writing. Neither any attestation nor probate is necessary, although there is nothing to prevent the court from granting probate. I am unable to accept this argument, without reservation. Part IX of the Indian Succession Act 1925 applies, inter alia, to all grants of probate. Under Section 222, probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the will. Part VI relating to testamentary succession does not make this part applicable to wills made by any Mohammedan. Now, this part relates, inter alia, to making of wills and codicils, form of attestation and so on. Save and except to the extent the said Act does not apply to Mohammedan wills, Mohammedan wills may be probated under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and in that case probate has to be obtained according to its requirements. In this court, additionally, the requirements of the Original Side rules and practice have to be met. There is substantial delay in filing this application, according to Mr. Chowdhury. It was filed on 16th March, 2011 when the probate was granted on 21st February, 2007. There is no doubt that there is substantial delay in making this application for revocation of probate. One has to remember that probate was granted in common form. In common form, the court grants probate in good faith, to the propounder, that the will propounded is a genuine will. That is the English practice. At any point of time a person interested can come forward and ask the executor to prove the will in solemn form. But, in our court the grant of probate is strictly not in common form in as much as we ask the petitioner to file consent affidavits of heirs who would have succeeded on intestacy declaring their no objection to the grant of probate. Furthermore, under section 281 of the Indian Succession Act, the petition has to be verified by at least one attesting witness, if he is procurable, that he was present and saw the testator affix his signature or mark on the will. There is now the practice of asking the petitioner to file an undertaking that there is no other person interested in the grant. There is now the practice of asking the petitioner to file an undertaking that there is no other person interested in the grant. Therefore, in our court it may not be so easy to reopen a probate granted in common form unless it is shown that some misrepresentation or fraud has been practiced upon the court or that the consent affidavits do not reflect any consent at all and so on. (See Bharat Kumar Amritlal Sayani & Anr. – vs – Jayantilal Kalidas Sayani & Ors., reported in 2012 CLT 234(HC)). Once a doubt is created in the mind of the court that the will which was presented before the court for probate was not genuine, or that the consent affidavits were fabricated, the court should at once revoke the grant and ask the executor to prove the will in solemn form. In this case, there is considerable doubt in my mind about the authenticity of the will, and consent affidavits as discussed above. In these circumstances, this application is allowed. I allow this application by passing orders in terms of prayers (a) and (c) of the petition. The respondent executor is called upon to prove the will in solemn form. I have not adjudged the assertion that the subject will need not be probated under the mohammedan customary law and is valid. Such point is kept open. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment/ order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (I.P. MUKERJI, J.) Later: Let signed copy of the operative part of the judgment and order be made available to the parties.