JUDGMENT & ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No.4) Agartala, West Tripura in case No. Misc (Letter of Administration) 3 of 2001. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. R.G. Chakraborty for the appellant and learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein, Smt. Sandeshi Bin presented an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the District Judge, West Tripiura Agartala seeking letter of Administration of a 'Will' executed by her husband Chitta Ram Bin on 17.10.2000 which was registered on 18.10.2000 before the Sub-Registrar, Sadar Sub-Division, West Tripura. The appellant herein namely Trishul Bin and other legal representatives of the deceased testator Chitta Ram Bin were arrayed as the opposite parties in the petition seeking letter of Administration. The original registered 'Will' was presented before the Court with the petition seeking letter of Administration. The appellant who is a son of the deceased testator through his first wife contested the case by filing written objection contending that his deceased father was suffering from cancer at the time when the 'Will' was executed and that the 'Will' was not genuine and further by that 'Will' the genuine legal representatives of the deceased Chitta Ram Bin have been deprived of. 4. In course of trial, the applicant examined herself as PW-I and also examined two attesting witnesses of the 'Will' namely Satish Chandra Majumder (PW-2) and Ramsudh Bin (PW-3). The trial Court allowed the application and issued letter of administration. 5. The decision of the trial Court is challenged in this appeal on the ground that the trial Court committed serious mistake in granting letter of Administration since the deceased testator was suffering from cancer at the relevant point of time which is an admitted fact. 6. Mr. Chakrabroty, learned counsel for the appellant referring to the deposition of the PW-1 has submitted that the deceased testator Chitta Ram Bin was under treatment at Vellore for about one and a half month and that the 'Will' was executed on 17.10.2000 and the testator died on 03.11.2000. According to the learned counsel, Mr. 6. Mr. Chakrabroty, learned counsel for the appellant referring to the deposition of the PW-1 has submitted that the deceased testator Chitta Ram Bin was under treatment at Vellore for about one and a half month and that the 'Will' was executed on 17.10.2000 and the testator died on 03.11.2000. According to the learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, this very short gap of time between the date of execution and the death itself suggests that the deceased was suffering from cancer severely and was not with a disposing mind. 7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that simply because the deceased was suffering from cancer cannot be a ground to put doubt about the execution of the 'Will'. PW-1 made clear statement that the deceased used to speak and was with sound mind and that contentions have been supported by PW-2 & 3 who are the attesting witnesses. According to learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik, there is no scope to doubt the genuinity of the execution of the 'Will'. 8. A Court of probate/letter of Administration is to see the genuinity of the execution of 'Will'. Once it is found to have executed by the testator and it was attested by two witnesses as required by law and the testator had sound mind in disposing of his property by the instrument, it is the solemn duty of all concern to respect the last 'Will' of the person. There is no dispute that 'Will' dated 17.10.2000 i.e. the Exbt-1 is the last 'Will' of the deceased Chitta Ram Bin. By that 'Will', he has bequeathed the property to his second wife, i.e. the applicant, respondent herein and he has deprived all other legal heirs. 9. No doubt what the other legal heirs would inherit in normal course, that has been taken away by this testamentary instrument. But once the execution of the testamentary instrument is proved, the normal right of the other legal heirs who would acquire it on the death of the testator will end. The appellant herein could not make out any case to throw doubt on the genuinity of the execution of the 'Will'. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel further submitted that Additional District Judge should not have disposed of the petition since the power was vested only with the principal District Judge. The appellant herein could not make out any case to throw doubt on the genuinity of the execution of the 'Will'. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel further submitted that Additional District Judge should not have disposed of the petition since the power was vested only with the principal District Judge. The petition was presented before the District Judge and it was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge who had finally heard it and decided the petition. Article 236 of the Constitution of India interprets the words 'District Judge' which include 'Additional District Judge' and so I find nothing wrong in exercise of the power by the Additional District Judge under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. 11. In my considered opinion, the trial Court rightly decided the petition and I find no extraneous circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the 'Will' was executed in a suspicious circumstance and that the testator had no disposing mind at the time of execution of the 'Will'. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed however, without any cost. 12. Send back the L.C. records along with the copy of this judgment.