Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 507 (JHR)

Miss Chitra Mitra @ Tulu Mitra v. Bandana Mitra

2014-04-16

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2014
Judgment D.N. Upadhyay, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 20.08.2010, passed by learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Giridih in connection with Probate Case No.01 of 2004/Title Suit No.07 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and the Will in question has been ordered to be probated. 2. Smt. Bandana Mitra and Dilip Kumar Mitra filed an application for grant of probate against a Will dated 03.06.1995 created by Asha Rani Mitra, wife of late Dhirendra Nath Mitra by which the testatrix had bequeathed the property owned and possessed by her within the district of Giridih, described in Schedule-A of the plaint in favour of Bandana Mitra whereas land and building situated at main road Belia Ghat, Kolkata, West Bengal, described in Schedule B of the plaint in favour of Dilip Kumar Mitra. 3. The facts, in brief, are that late Asha Rani Mitra widow of late Dhirendra Nath Mitra and her sisterinlaw (Gotini) Kiran Bala Mitra had acquired 03 bighas 11 kathas and 4 dhurs of land by standard measurement surrounded by compound wall consisting of Pukka house bearing holding no.186 (old) 253 (new) ward no.1 (old), ward no.2 (new) of Giridih Municipility situated by the side of Giridih Bengaband road Barganda mouza Makatpur Thana No.95, Giridih town. In view of the final decree prepared in Partition Suit no.24 of 1978 Asha Rani Mitra was allotted 01 bigha 15 kathas and 12 dhurs in two blocks over portion of residential building and other structures, trees, gardens, wells etc. with separate boundaries, fully described in schedule-A of the petition to which she acquired and had been enjoying peaceful possession. Asha Rani Mitra also owned and possessed half share in an undivided land measuring 2.75 kathas of standard measurement with thatched roof by G.I. sheets consisting of bed rooms, kitchens, store rooms, bath roomlatrine and courtyard etc. bearing house no.45/H/14 Belia Ghat main road, Kolkata which is fully described in schedule B of the petition. Asha Rani Mitra was blessed with a son named Dilip Kumar Mitra who is married with Smt. Bandana Mitra (petitioner). Asha Rani Mitra was also having five daughters namely Chitra Mitra, Shipra Mitra, Dipti Mitra, Tripti Mitra and Shuvra Mitra (defendants). 4. bearing house no.45/H/14 Belia Ghat main road, Kolkata which is fully described in schedule B of the petition. Asha Rani Mitra was blessed with a son named Dilip Kumar Mitra who is married with Smt. Bandana Mitra (petitioner). Asha Rani Mitra was also having five daughters namely Chitra Mitra, Shipra Mitra, Dipti Mitra, Tripti Mitra and Shuvra Mitra (defendants). 4. Asha Rani Mitra executed her last Will on 03.06.1995 in her sound mind and health and bequeathed the property described in scheduled A in favour of petitioner no.1 and similarly schedule B property in favour of petitioner no.2. The Will was executed and signed by testatrix in presence of her two daughters namely Tripti Deb and Shipra Mitra and two more witnesses namely Ajay Kumar Dey and Rajesh Kumar Sinha. Asha Rani breathed her last on 26.05.1998 and the Will was presented for probate on 09.03.2004 for which Probate Case No.01 of 2004 was registered. In the said petition all the five daughters of late Asha Rani Mitra have been arrayed as defendants. 5. After service of notice the appellants and proforma respondent no.3, who were defendants in the Probate Case No.01 of 2004 appeared and filed their objection against grant of probate as a result the Probate Case No.01 of 2004 was converted as Title Suit No.07 of 2004. The defendant nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed their written statement on 11.06.2004 which was adopted by defendant nos.3 and 5 on 01.09.2004. 6. The defendants have denied the execution of Will and contended that Asha Rani Mitra had left no Will dated 03.06.1995 as alleged by the petitioners/respondents. As a matter of fact, signature of Asha Rani Mitra, Shipra Mitra and Tripti Dev were obtained on blank sheets by Dilip Kumar Mitra who was making pairvee in Title Partition Suit No.24 of 1978 and Title Suit No.16 of 1986. Shipra Mitra and Tripti Dev never signed any Will as attesting witnesses and the blank sheets, on which signatures of Asha Rani Mitra, Shipra Mitra and Tripti Dev were taken, have been converted in the shape of Will presented by the petitioners. Further averments have been made in the written statement that testatrix was lying ill and she was bed ridden and was not in the position to make any Will. The alleged Will dated 03.06.1995 is nothing but a forged document created in order to grab the property. Further averments have been made in the written statement that testatrix was lying ill and she was bed ridden and was not in the position to make any Will. The alleged Will dated 03.06.1995 is nothing but a forged document created in order to grab the property. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1995 page 201 para 6, 8, 17, 18 and 27. The defendants have made out a specific case that after death of Asha Rani Mitra, they filed Partition Suit No. 56 of 2003 in which their brother Dilip Kumar Mitra is the defendant. In order to grab the entire property, alleged Will has been created after consulting legal brain. In the Partition Suit No.56 of 2003 each daughter has claimed 1/6th share in the property left by Asha Rani Mitra. 7. On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed: (I) Is the present case for probate maintainable? (II) Is the will date 3.6.95 in favour of Bandana Mitra and Dilip Kumar Mitra executed by Asha Rani Mitra? (III) Was Asha Rani Mitra a woman of sound mind and on relevant date on 3.6.95 and capable for executing will? (IV) Is the will dated 3.6.95 genuine? (V) Are the plaintiffs/petitioners entitled to probate of the will dated 3.6.1995? (VI) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs/petitioners are entitled to? 8. The parties have adduced evidence both oral and documentary, in support of their respective claim and after considering the evidence and documents on record learned trial Court has been pleased to grant probate against the Will dated 03.06.1995 executed by late Asha Rani Mitra and the suit was accordingly decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiffs and hence this appeal. 9. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that on 03.06.1995 late Asha Rani Mitra had not executed and signed any Will by which she bequeathed her selfacquired property situated at Giridih, as described in Schedule-A of the plaint, in favour of respondent Bandana Mitra and similarly she had not bequeathed her half and undivided share in the property situated at Kolkata, fully described in Schedule-B of the probate application, in favour of respondent Dilip Kumar Mitra. No such Will was ever executed in presence of Shipra Mitra and Tripti Deb. No such Will was ever executed in presence of Shipra Mitra and Tripti Deb. The alleged Will has been created by respondents in order to grab the entire property left by late Asha Rani Mitra. PW1 Ajay Kumar Dey and PW3 Rajesh Kumar Sinha had never witnessed execution of any Will alleged to have been executed on 03.06.1995 by testatrix Asha Rani Mitra. Since the appellants have sought for partition of the property left by Asha Rani Mitra, the respondents have fabricated documents disclosing it to be a Will and manipulated to obtain signatures of PW1 Ajay Kumar Dey and PW3 Rajesh Kumar Sinha declaring them attesting witnesses. It is apparent from bare perusal of the document that signature of PW1 and PW3 have been obtained at later stage and they have nothing to do with the attestation of alleged Will. They are the close friends of Dilip Kumar Mitra and they did not have acquaintance with the family. 10. The learned counsel has referred the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of respondents and submitted that according to their evidence alleged Will came in their possession within 34 months after the death of Asha Rani Mitra but it was not disclosed to anyone. The alleged Will was not presented for probate and execution of alleged Will has been brought to the notice only after the appellants filed suit for partition of the property. The delay in presenting the alleged Will for probate is a suspicious circumstance to which the respondents have failed to remove. 11. It is further argued that the respondents have failed to disclose name of the advocate who, at the instruction of testatrix, had drafted the alleged Will. No such draft, on the basis of which the Will was typed, has been brought on record, the typist has also not been examined. In this context it is pointed out that Asha Rani Mitra was having acquaintance with the lawyers of Giridih and she had been meeting them in course of doing pairvee in connection with Partition Suit No.24 of 1978 and Title Suit No.16 of 1986. The circumstance as to why Asha Rani Mitra, instead of getting the Will drafted by the lawyers of Giridih, had chosen to get it drafted by an advocate of Hazaribagh, has not been explained. The circumstance as to why Asha Rani Mitra, instead of getting the Will drafted by the lawyers of Giridih, had chosen to get it drafted by an advocate of Hazaribagh, has not been explained. It was also not indicated as to when such Will was drafted by an advocate of Hazaribagh and why it was not typed at Hazaribagh itself. It is admitted case that Asha Rani Mitra was not so literate that she could understand content of the Will written in English. Therefore, the respondents have failed to prove that the testatrix had signed the alleged Will after understanding the disposition made therein. The learned Additional District Judge has erred by ignoring such fact by admitting the Will to be genuine. 12. According to alleged Will the testatrix had debarred her daughters from inheriting the property left by her but the reason for that has not been assigned. What to say about the reasons, it is not even mentioned in the alleged Will that Asha Rani Mitra was having five daughters. For the argument sake, if it is admitted to be correct that testatrix was not happy with one of the daughter Suvra Mitra who got herself married with a person of her choice and she was not willing to make any arrangement for her in the property, the Will is completely silent about rest of the four daughters. The evidence on record indicates that two of the daughters were present at the time of death of the testatrix and their presence sufficiently suggests that they were having affection and regard for their mother. The disinheritance of daughters is silent in the Will and it is also a suspicious circumstance to be explained by the respondents to which they have failed to explain satisfactorily. 13. The learned counsel has further argued that deposition of PW1 and PW3 are contradictory to each other on vital points. They have not consistently stated as to when the Will was drafted, when it was typed and how they put their presence at the time of execution of alleged Will. By referring Exhibits-G and G/1, the petitions filed in connection with Partition Suit No.24 of 1978, it was submitted that signatures of Asha Rani Mitra at the bottom of the application and under verification is similar to that appearing at the last page of the alleged Will. By referring Exhibits-G and G/1, the petitions filed in connection with Partition Suit No.24 of 1978, it was submitted that signatures of Asha Rani Mitra at the bottom of the application and under verification is similar to that appearing at the last page of the alleged Will. Dilip Kumar Mitra has affidavited those petitions which is also apparent but he says that he was never doing pairvee in that case rather the testatrix herself was doing pairvee. It is up to respondent Dilip Kumar Mitra to explain as to why he had given incorrect statement after taking oath. This conduct of the respondents shows that he has not come with fair hand and alleged Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances which stood unexplained and therefore the finding of the learned Additional District Judge is highly erroneous and liable to be set aside. The respondents have also tried to conceal the ailments from which the testatrix was suffering from. The death certificate indicates that Asha Rani Mitra died due to cancer. The testatrix was not having good health and sound mind after the year 1992 and this fact could well be gathered from the letters written by the family members to each other and those letters have been marked Exhibit A and A/1. The alleged Will was not executed in presence of any doctor though Dr. B.B. Sarkar was the family doctor and he was in the visiting term. In contrary to that Dr. B.B. Sarkar has given certificate that Asha Rani Mitra was not carrying good health and the certificate is Exhibit-C. This also creates doubt against genuineness of execution of alleged Will. 14. On the point of suspicious circumstance indicated above, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in (i) AIR 2002 Delhi page 20 para 98, 101, 103, 118, 145 and 146 and (ii) (2005) 1 SCC page 280 para 16, 18, 19 and 20. On the point of attestation and execution, he has relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court page 63 para8, (2005) 8 SCC page 67 para 22, (2003) 2 SCC page 91 para 5 to 11. On the point of intention of the testator the judgment relied upon are (1) AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2103 para 8, (b) (2003) 6 SCC page 98 para 98 and (c) (2005) 2 SCC page 784 para 11, 14 and 15. 15. On the point of intention of the testator the judgment relied upon are (1) AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2103 para 8, (b) (2003) 6 SCC page 98 para 98 and (c) (2005) 2 SCC page 784 para 11, 14 and 15. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs has submitted that the Will was executed by the testatrix in her good health and sound mind and she had signed the same after understanding the declaration made therein. The content of the Will was explained by one of the witnesses Shipra Mitra to the testatrix and after understanding it to be correct she had put her signatures in presence of attesting witnesses. Out of four attesting witnesses PW1 Ajay Kumar Dey and PW3 Rajesh Kumar Sinha have been examined and they have clearly stated that Asha Rani Mitra requested them to remain present in her house in the evening and considering the request they went to the house of Asha Rani Mitra where the Will was executed in their presence and signed by Asha Rani Mitra. They have also signed the Will as attesting witnesses. They have proved the Will in accordance with law. The requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has fully been complied with and the document has well been proved as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. There is no room for the appellants to raise suspicion against execution of said Will. The propounder has to prove that the Will was executed as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to which they did and by examining two of the attesting witnesses further requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act was fulfilled. If the appellants have challenged the Will declaring it to be forged, the onus lies on them to prove it and it goes without saying that they have miserably failed to discharge their onus in this regard. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 324 . Two of the appellants namely Shipra Mitra and Tripti Deb have not denied their signatures with date appearing on the Will. They have not supported the execution of the Will only because greed to obtain the property has cropped up in their mind after death of their mother Asha Rani Mitra. Two of the appellants namely Shipra Mitra and Tripti Deb have not denied their signatures with date appearing on the Will. They have not supported the execution of the Will only because greed to obtain the property has cropped up in their mind after death of their mother Asha Rani Mitra. This is the cogent explanation as to why they did not support the execution of Will. There are judgments that merely disinheritance in the Will is not a suspicious circumstance and there might be various reason for debarring the legal heirs from getting share in the property. Likewise, the delay in presentation of Will for probate is also not a suspicious circumstance. It is admitted situation that respondents were in possession of the property since the lifetime of the testatrix and after her death they were peacefully enjoying the same without any hindrance from any corner. When a suit for partition was filed by the appellants in the year 2003, the respondents disclosed the execution of said Will to their counsel and after getting advice, an application to probate the Will was filed. In this context the learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 786 para8. 16. It was contended that Will is a written instrument by which the testator declare his last wish as to how the property acquired by him shall be managed, inherited, devolved upon or obtained by a person after his death. The Court cannot substitute its opinion for what was the testator's last wish or intention. In this context the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 page 1975 para 75 to 78. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly accepted the genuineness of the Will. The testatrix had signed the Will on every page and also at the foot of the document. Only because signatures of PW1 and PW3 are appearing not in seriatim that is no ground to reject the Will. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in 2011(1) JCR 36. 18. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties, documents and evidence on record and the impugned judgment. Only because signatures of PW1 and PW3 are appearing not in seriatim that is no ground to reject the Will. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in 2011(1) JCR 36. 18. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties, documents and evidence on record and the impugned judgment. It is settled law that a Will is to be proved as other documents are proved according to law and the court shall proceed with the enquiry in the like manner. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put his signature to the document on his own free will. Therefore, the propounder of Will has to prove its due and valid execution by eliminating suspicious circumstances. If there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will, the propounder must remove it by cogent and satisfactory evidence. Whether a Will is genuine or not has to be decided on the facts of each case. There is no mathematical equation to determine whether a Will is genuine or not. The authenticity of Will depends on the circumstances surrounding its execution and the quality of the evidence that is led in respect of its genuineness. The natural conduct of human being is to acquire property for spending his life smoothly and also in order to make his future life secure. They become more attached with the property than their children, relatives and friends. In order to protect the property so acquired, he takes all best efforts not only during his lifetime but also try to make arrangement that the property after his death should not be misutilised. What I mean to say is, if the descendants are not competent to inherit the property, he makes special arrangement by executing a Will or by transferring the property to a right hand by way of gift. The Will is a kind of document by which the testator expresses his last wish to bequeath his property, therefore, the Court should be more cautious, careful and responsible when such Will is presented either for grant of Probate or for Letters of Administration. The Will is a kind of document by which the testator expresses his last wish to bequeath his property, therefore, the Court should be more cautious, careful and responsible when such Will is presented either for grant of Probate or for Letters of Administration. The Court must visualise the circumstances under which the Will was executed and if the circumstances are not free from suspicion, the propounder shall be called upon to remove those suspicious circumstances with cogent and convincing explanation. 19. Now, come to the circumstances appearing in the case at hand. It is stated that the testatrix had got the Will drafted by a lawyer of Hazaribagh but it was typed by a typist of Giridih. The propounders or the witnesses have failed to explain as to how and when the testatrix had gone to Hazaribagh to consult a lawyer for getting a Will drafted. The name of advocate who drafted the Will has not been disclosed by any of the witness examined by the propounders. The draft copy of the Will has not been placed before the Court. The typist who had typed the Will did not come forward to support the contention. Thus, it is a suspicious circumstance as to why the testatrix could not get the Will typed at Hazaribagh itself. The evidence available on record further indicates that the testatrix was having acquaintance with the lawyers of Giridih because she was contesting a partition suit, then pending in the Civil Court, Giridih. In this context, it is further necessary to reiterate the evidence that the testatrix was not so literate and she was not capable of understanding English language. The Will presented for probate is drafted in English and therefore, it was not within her understanding. PW1 and PW3 have stated that the content of Will was read over and explained to the testatrix by witness Shipra Mitra but Shipra Mitra has not supported the execution of Will rather she has challenged and deposed that no such Will on that very date was created by her mother Asha Rani Mitra. Therefore, the requirement that the testatrix understood the nature and effect of the disposition do not appear to be fulfilled. Therefore, the requirement that the testatrix understood the nature and effect of the disposition do not appear to be fulfilled. PW1 in para 8 of his examination-in-chief has stated that the testatrix along with her daughter Tripti Mitra, carrying draft of the Will, had come on 03.06.1995 and they all went to Civil Court and got it typed by Basudev Uraon. He was further asked to come in the evening and two daughters namely Shipra Mitra and Tripti Dev were present in the house at the time of execution of Will. Tripti Mitra did not support contention of PW1 that she along with her mother had ever been to the place of this witness with a request to accompany them for getting the draft Will typed. These two daughters did not support that any such Will was prepared and signed by their mother Asha Rani Mitra. In the circumstances, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 is contradicted by Shipra Mitra and Tripti Dev. The name of the advocate who drafted the alleged Will is unknown, any draft on the basis of which alleged Will was typed, is not available, the typist has not been examined, the testatrix was unable to read and understand English language, Shipra Mitra who alleged to have read over and explained the Will to the testatrix, has not supported this version of PW1 and PW3, Tripti Deb along with her mother Asha Rani Mitra had gone to the place of PW1 to make a request to come to their house for attesting the Will does not find support from the evidence of Tripti Deb, why the Will was not drafted by any of the lawyer of Giridih with whom the testatrix was in touch also create a serious doubt regarding execution of alleged Will. Out of the circumstances indicated above, the most important circumstance is that content of the Will was read over and explained to the testatrix stands disproved by Shipra Mitra because she did not support such statement of PW1 and PW3. If it was so, the nature and effect of disposition was certainly not within the understanding of testatrix. 20. The witnesses produced and examined by the propounder have stated that testatrix was not having cordial relation with her daughters (appellants) and that was the reason they have been disinherited. If it was so, the nature and effect of disposition was certainly not within the understanding of testatrix. 20. The witnesses produced and examined by the propounder have stated that testatrix was not having cordial relation with her daughters (appellants) and that was the reason they have been disinherited. Had it been so, the alleged Will could not have been prepared in their presence and they should not have been made witness to such Will. The evidence on record suggest that the testatrix was not happy with her one of the daughter Shuvra Mitra who got herself married with a boy of her choice and she had been living separately. Not only that, she had also filed suit for partition of the property during the lifetime of testatrix but the fact remain that other four daughters who are appellant were defending their mother and the steps taken in that case also suggest that they were in support of their mother. One of the daughter Chitra was unmarried and she was living with her mother (testatrix). The statement of PW1 and PW3 also indicate that the daughters were present at the time of preparation of alleged Will and they were also present when the testatrix breathed her last. The correspondences made between the sisters and their ward also suggest that they were always worrying about the illness of the testatrix. These evidences and documents contradict version of the propounder that the daughters were disinherited because the testatrix was not having good relation with them. Further important point in this regard is that the content of alleged Will is completely silent about the existence of any of the daughter and then what to say about the reason for debarring them from getting their share in the property. Again natural conduct of a human being is to be taken note of. If a father or a mother is going to debar their children from getting share in the property after their death and any Will by which the property is going to be bequeathed in favour of any third person or relative other than the children, he or she shall make disposition of his property, if so wished, concealing such disposition from the children who have been disinherited. These facts and reasoning are absent in the case in hand and it is also a strong suspicious circumstance against genuineness of a Will. These facts and reasoning are absent in the case in hand and it is also a strong suspicious circumstance against genuineness of a Will. The Will has been marked Exhibit1 in which serial no.1 and serial no.2 have been typed under the heading witnesses. Signatures of Tripti Dev and Shipra Mitra are appearing in serial no.1 and 2 respectively. No serial no.3 or 4 is typed in the Will rather serial no.3 and 4 have been written in ink at the side of serial no.1 and 2 respectively. Ajay Kumar Dey PW1 and Rajesh Kumar Sinha PW3 have signed in serial no.3 and 4, at the bottom of the Will Two signatures of testatrix are appearing at the last page of the Will and between the two signatures of the testatrix date i.e. 3.6.95 has been given and word 'Executed' in ink has been written and also typed. Below the second signature of testatrix there is nothing. It is not explained as to why testatrix had put her two signatures one after another on the last page of the Will. The attesting witnesses have said that they all used one pen for putting their signatures on the Will but from bare perusal of the signatures it is apparent that the signatures were made by different pen and different ink. The ink indicating signature of Tripti Dev and Shipra Mitra appears different from the ink appearing in the signature of testatrix. Signature of Ajay Kumar Dey is also appearing to be signed by a different pen having different ink. Besides the above, signature of Rajesh Kumar Sinha is indicating that a pen having black ink was used. There is no bar that one and same pen cannot be used by the testator and the witnesses for putting their signature on the Will and it could not be a suspicious circumstance. In the case at hand the witnesses have said that they used one and same pen for the purpose of putting their signatures on the Will but from perusal of the signatures appearing on the Will it is apparent that different pen having different ink were used for putting signatures on the Will. This goes to show that other attesting witnesses were not present at the time of execution of Will or they are telling lie and the propounder has not come with fair hand. 21. This goes to show that other attesting witnesses were not present at the time of execution of Will or they are telling lie and the propounder has not come with fair hand. 21. It is settled law that there is no limitation for presenting the Will for its probate or for grant of Letters of Administration but delay in presenting the Will some times become suspicious. In the case at hand evidence of PW2 is very clear that she got the Will within 34 months after the death of her mother-in-law (testatrix). The relation of propounders was not strained with the appellants at the relevant point of time. The propounders have failed to give cogent explanation as to why existence of Will was not disclosed to the appellants when it came in the hand of PW2. Had there any Will executed in presence of two daughters namely Shipra Mitra and Tripti Dev and if they were knowing that they have been disinherited and they had gladly accepted the last wish of the testatrix, they themselves should have disclosed about the existence of Will just after death of the testatrix but it was not so. Take another situation that alleged Will was prepared in presence of those two daughters but they were not happy with the disposition made therein and they were bound to shut their mouth against such disposition during the lifetime of the testatrix, then the natural conduct of the daughters would be that they should have filed the suit for partition immediately after the death of testatrix but it is not so because the suit for partition has been filed by them in the year 2003 i.e. about five years after the death of testatrix. The propounders have further admitted that they disclosed about the existence of alleged Will after filing of said partition suit. Therefore, the delay in presenting the Will in the case at hand is certainly a suspicious circumstance. 22. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellants have challenged the Will and said that it is a forged one and they have failed to discharge onus in this regard. Therefore, the delay in presenting the Will in the case at hand is certainly a suspicious circumstance. 22. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellants have challenged the Will and said that it is a forged one and they have failed to discharge onus in this regard. The document and evidence on record goes to show that in Title Partition Suit No.24 of 1978 and 16 of 1986 respondent Dilip Kumar Mitra was doing parivee but he has tried to conceal this fact and deposed that pairvee was made by his mother Asha Rani Mitra. The petitions filed by Asha Rani Mitra in those cases were signed by Asha Rani Mitra but verification was made by Dilip Kumar Mitra that goes to show that he was doing pairvee in those cases. The appellants Tripti Dev and Shipra Mitra have said that on many occasions Dilip Kumar Mitra had obtained their signature on blank sheets and likewise signatures of Asha Rani Mitra were also obtained on blank sheets to make pairvee in those cases. They have said that the blank sheets on which signatures were obtained have been later converted in the shape of alleged Will and according to that it was fabricated by the propounders. In the preceding paragraphs I have elaborately highlighted the suspicious circumstance with which execution of Will is shrouded. It is also indicated that the propounders of a Will shall have to remove all the suspicious circumstances by cogent explanation if appearing against execution of a Will but the propounders have failed to do so. In view of the discussions and reasoning given above, I am of the opinion that the propounders have failed to discharge this part of onus lies on them. 23. Now, coming to the judgments cited by the respondents. I would simply say that the facts and circumstances which have been indicated and discussed in the preceding paragraphs and appearing in the case at hand are not available in those cases. Therefore, I do not think that the case laws relied upon by the respondents are of any help and need reference and discussion to distinguish. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20.08.2010, passed by learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Giridih in connection with Probate Case No.01 of 2004/Title Suit No.07 of 2004 are hereby set aside. 25. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20.08.2010, passed by learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Giridih in connection with Probate Case No.01 of 2004/Title Suit No.07 of 2004 are hereby set aside. 25. The interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.