Judgment DEBANGSU BASAK, J. An application for grant of probate of a Will was opposed and was marked as a contentious cause. Joint executors named in the last Will and testament of Anil Kumar Roy since deceased applied for the grant of the Will of the said deceased. The applicants claim that the deceased left behind his Will and last testament dated April 20, 1980. The deceased died seized and possessed of movable and immovable properties described in Schedule A in the affidavit of the joint executors. One of the attesting witnesses has filed an affidavit stating that, the original Will annexed to the application of the joint executors is the Will of the deceased and that such will was signed in presence of the two attesting witnesses and that the attesting witnesses set and subscribed their respective signatures in the presence of the deceased and each other. The attesting witnesses also stated that the testator was of sound mind and made the said Will of his free consent and volition. One of the daughters of the testator is opposing the grant of the probate of the Will of the testator. According to her, the deceased, her father, had deep love and affection for her and her husband. In fact, the family of her in laws was well-known to her family prior to her marriage. According to her, it was the desire of the father that her husband should marry one of the daughters of the deceased. Sisters elder to her did not marry her husband and, therefore, she was given in marriage to her husband. Subsequent to her marriage she and her husband had extremely cordial relationship with the deceased. It is at the machinations of the youngest sister that ill feelings was sought to be generated between her husband and her father. She narrates diverse incidents taking place in her family with regard thereto. She claims that the Will of the father does not contain the wish of her deceased father and that the alleged Will is not the product of the free will of deceased father and is unnatural. She claims that the alleged Will is a suspicious document and it did not appear to be signed by her father of his own free will. Three issues were settled by the Order dated February 19, 2013. The settled issues are as follows:- “1. She claims that the alleged Will is a suspicious document and it did not appear to be signed by her father of his own free will. Three issues were settled by the Order dated February 19, 2013. The settled issues are as follows:- “1. Does this Hon’ble Court have the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the instant Testamentary Suit? 2. Was the Will dated April 20, 1980 executed and published by Dr. Anil Kumar Roy (Deceased)? 3. Is the Will dated April 20, 1980 executed by the testator vitiated by any illegality as alleged in paragraph 6 of the Affidavit in support of Caveat of the defendant?” Anita Mukherjee one of the executors of the Will was examined-in-chief and cross-examined. The surviving attesting witness a well-known Advocate on this Court was examined and cross-examined. When the turn for the defendant came to adduce evidence initially adjournment was sought for on her behalf on the ground that she was required in Spain to look after her daughter there. A date convenient to her was fixed. On April 7, 2014 learned Advocate for the defendant reiterated that, she was still in Spain and a further date may be fixed. The next date of her choice being May 13, 2014 was fixed. Thereafter, there was a change in the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant. The new Advocate appearing for the defendant prayed for adjournment on the ground that the defendant was medically unfit to give evidence in Court. The matter was adjourned from time to time. On July 16, 2014 when another adjournment was sought for on the same ground, I requested the defendant to adduce evidence on Commission in view of the fact that, she was expressing inability to attend Court for evidence. The defendant was categorical in her submission and stated in no certain terms that, she will not adduce evidence by way of a Commission. I considered such stand of the defendant and closed the evidence on behalf of the defendant on July 16, 2014. The matter was, thereafter, posted for hearing arguments. Arguments were advanced by the respective parties and I reserved judgment. In the course of argument the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant sought to rely upon a decision reported at All India Reporter 2012 Calcutta page 7 (Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (deceased) & Anr. v. Santosh Kumari Mahendra Kumar Sadh & Ors.). The matter was, thereafter, posted for hearing arguments. Arguments were advanced by the respective parties and I reserved judgment. In the course of argument the learned Advocate appearing for the defendant sought to rely upon a decision reported at All India Reporter 2012 Calcutta page 7 (Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (deceased) & Anr. v. Santosh Kumari Mahendra Kumar Sadh & Ors.). The case law was, however, not placed before me in Court. While considering the matter after reserving judgment I was of the view that Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (deceased) & Anr. (supra) should be discussed in Court afresh in view of the application for dismissal of the proceedings made on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, I posted the matter as “to be mentioned” initially and then posted it on a date convenient to the parties for hearing “arguments”. The Defendant took out an application for examination of herself on Commission. The application was not appropriately intiluted and as such the defendant applied for and obtained leave to withdraw such application which was granted. The argument, thereafter, both on the point of law and on merits was advanced by the respective parties. The first issue relates to jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Court for the defendant cites Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (deceased) & Anr. (supra). He submits that, this Court does not have jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the amendment to the City Civil Court Act, 1953. According to him, Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is omitted by the amendment introduced to the City Civil Court Act, 1953. Consequently, According to him this Court does not have jurisdiction to try the proceedings. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs relies upon 1984 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes page 99 (In the goods of : Sailendra Nath Sarkar, deceased),1993 Calcutta Weekly Notes page 812 (In the goods of : Smt. Tarak Bala Dasi) and 2006 Volume 2 Calcutta Law Journal (Cal) page 460 (Prabir Kumar Das v. Smt. Jayanti Das & Anr.) for the proposition that, in respect of a testator having an immovable property within the jurisdiction of the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta, this Hon’ble Court by virtue of the amendment to the City Civil Court Act, 1953 introduced did not have jurisdiction to consider an application for grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of such person. However, the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant probate or letters of administration in respect of other cases remains unaffected despite the amendment to the City Civil Court Act, 1953. He submits that, in Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (deceased) & Anr. (supra) one immovable property of the testator lying and situate within the jurisdiction of the learned City Civil Court at Kolkata was involved. In such circumstances the Division Bench was of the view that the amendment to the City Civil Court took away the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application in respect of probate whose cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned City Civil Court at Kolkata. He also refers to paragraph 19 of the said report and submits that, if the cause of action for filing an application for grant of probate or letters of administration has arising within the limits of the original side, the learned City Civil Court at Kolkata will have such jurisdiction. Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (deceased) & Anr. (supra) according to him, was not an authority for the proposition that, the High Court lost its jurisdiction to grant probate or letters of administration in respect of other circumstances. Question as to whether the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant probate or letters of administration under Indian Succession Act, 1925 as well under Clause 34 of the Letters Patent, 1965 was affected in view of the amendment to the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 received consideration in Sailendra Nath Sarkar (supra). Diverse provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the City Civil Court Act and Clause 34 of the Letters Patent, 1965 were considered. Various authorities were also considered. In paragraph 37 of such report it was held that, “The necessary effect of the above amendment and omission, in my view, is that the power and jurisdiction of the High Court in the testamentary or intestate matter under the provision of Indian Succession Act have been totally taken away and partially under Clause 34 of the Letters Patent in cases arising exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, i.e. where the deceased had his fixed place of abode and has also left all his assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. High Court’s jurisdiction under Clause 34 of the Letters Patent in respect of cases arising outside the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court has not been affected.” In that case the deceased died having a place of abode and assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, Howrah. In that view of the matter the High Court was found to have jurisdiction to entertain and try the testamentary proceedings relating to the deceased under Clause 34 of the Letters Patent. In Smt. Tarak Bala Dasi (supra) the application for grant of probate was resisted on the ground that the same was not maintainable before this Court in view of the same amendment of the City Civil Court Act, 1953. Sailendra Nath Sarkar (supra) was noted in that case. The deceased in that case was having the place of abode within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court at Kolkata. An immovable property of the deceased was lying and situate at Kashi outside the State of West Bengal. In such circumstances it was held that, the proceeding was not maintainable before the High Court. In Prabir Kumar Das (supra) both Sailendra Nath Sarkar (supra) and Smt. Tarak Bala Dasi (supra) were considered. It held in paragraph 15 thereof as follows:- “The said Act of 1953 was enacted to minimize the load of the High Court in its original side and not for the purpose of ouster of its jurisdiction within the City of Calcutta or otherwise. The object of the bill was to ensure speedy administration of Justice in the City of Calcutta. Section 5(1) of the said Act of 1953 limits the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court within the City of Calcutta. By amendment of sub-section 3 the matters under Indian Succession Act, 1925 were given exclusively to the City Civil Court to the exclusion of the High Court. By the amendment the provisions of Section 300(1) of the Succession Act was made inapplicable within the City of Calcutta. In the instant case testator was having his permanent place of abode within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, 24-Parganas (North). By the amendment the provisions of Section 300(1) of the Succession Act was made inapplicable within the City of Calcutta. In the instant case testator was having his permanent place of abode within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, 24-Parganas (North). In such view of the matter by dint of Section 300(1) read with Clause 34 of the Letters Patent the High Court retained its concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge, 24-Parganas (North) to entertain this application.” Adverting to the present case the evidence on record establishes that the deceased had its permanent residence at 11, Bagchi Road, Kolkata- 700029 outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned City Civil Court at Kolkata. The place of abode of the deceased, therefore, being within the State of West Bengal and the same not being within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Kolkata this Court will, therefore, have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. The issue of the jurisdiction is, therefore, answered accordingly. The next two issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience. The Will is marked as an exhibit. A well-known Advocate of this Court is one of the attesting witnesses of the Will, the other attesting witness is a retired Judge of this Hon’ble Court and who is no longer in this world. The executor identified the Will of the deceased. The Will is marked as an exhibit on the evidence of the attesting witness. The Will bears the signatures of the deceased at every page. The attesting witness in his evidence states that the Will is executed in his presence and that the testator and the other attesting witnesses saw the testator to execute the Will and that the testator and the attesting witnesses set and subscribed their respective signatures on the Will in presence of each other. It is suggested on behalf of the defendant that, the testator did not make out the Will out of free will and consent and that there are suspicious circumstances governing the Will. Nothing came out of the cross-examination of the two witnesses on behalf of the applicants as to absence of free will and consent of the testator or any attending suspicious circumstance relating to the Will. The defendant has chosen not to give any evidence in support of her case. Nothing came out of the cross-examination of the two witnesses on behalf of the applicants as to absence of free will and consent of the testator or any attending suspicious circumstance relating to the Will. The defendant has chosen not to give any evidence in support of her case. The allegations made in paragraph 6 in support of the caveat remain unsubstantiated by her either by her or on her behalf. Neither the examination in chief nor the cross-examination of the chief of the two witnesses of the applicants substantiates any of the allegations made in paragraph 6 in support of the caveat. In course of argument learned Counsel for the defendant reiterates the stand of his client in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the caveat. He relies upon various questions and answers put to the two witnesses to demonstrate that there was no written instructions given by the testator for the purpose of preparation of the Will, the Will was not executed at the residence of the testator but was executed at the residence of the deceased attesting witness and that another Will of the mother of the deceased was executed on the same day as that of the same Will. He contends that, there are suspicious circumstances relating to the execution of the Will and that, the deceased had considerable amount of love and affection of his client to deny any succession in his estate as sought to be done in the Will. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with any of the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant. Absence of written instructions does not vitiate the Will. The attesting witness, a well-known Advocate of this Court, explained in his evidence as to how the Will came about. The attesting witness states that, the Will was drafted at the instructions of the testator and that, the Will disclosed the desire of the testator. The testator is a doctor by profession. There is no material on record to show that, he lost his mental capacity at the time of the execution of the Will. Certain family incidents are referred to in the affidavit in support of caveat to suggest that, the mind of the testator was influenced by the youngest daughter of the testator as against the defendant and her husband. There is no material on record to show that, he lost his mental capacity at the time of the execution of the Will. Certain family incidents are referred to in the affidavit in support of caveat to suggest that, the mind of the testator was influenced by the youngest daughter of the testator as against the defendant and her husband. Even taking such case to its highest it would be improper to hold that a doctor by profession did not know the contents of the Will that he was executing. The Will is executed in presence of a retired Judge of this Court as well as a well-known Advocate of this Court at the residence of the retired Judge of this Court. Therefore, it is extremely improbable that, the youngest sister of the defendant continued to have a pervasive control on the will of the testator at the time of the execution of the Will. Learned Counsel for the defendant suggests that, the pages in the Will subsequent to the signatures of the testator and the attesting witness did not bear the signature of the attesting witnesses. As they formed part of the Will they are required to be signed by the attesting witnesses also to be of any value. The pages subsequent to the signatures of the testator and the two attesting witnesses are site maps. The site maps are referred to in the body of the Will stating that such site maps forms part of the Will. The site maps are signed by the testator. The entirety of the Will cannot be faulted on such ground. Exhibit ‘A’ is, therefore, the Will of Anil Kumar Roy since deceased. The second and the third issues framed in the instant proceedings are, therefore, answered accordingly. T.S. No. 3 of 1995 is, therefore, allowed. G.A. No. 554 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs. There will be a probate of the Will of Anil Kumar Roy since deceased being Exhibit ‘A’ of the Will dated April 20, 1980. The Department is directed to draw up and complete the decree as expeditiously as possible.