JUDGMENT : Shivakant Prasad, J. The appellants have impugned the judgment and the decree dated 30th September, 2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Original Suit No. 05 of 1997 as bad in law and in fact, inter alia, on the grounds that learned Trial Judge ought not have held the Will in question as a genuine allegedly executed by late Ashalata Guha Roy on comparing her signature as an expert. Secondly, that testatrix Ashalata Guha Roy died in 1973 and the application for grant for letters of administration was filed in the year 1996. So, learned Judge ought to have held that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to remove the suspicious circumstance arising in the case for such unexplained long delay in filing the said application. Thirdly, that the provision laid down under Section 229 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 regarding issuance of citation upon the executors have not been complied and finding as to conduct of executors having renounced their executorship are perverse as there is no provision of Section 230 of Indian Succession Act. 2. According to the appellants, Ashalata Guha Roy died interested without any issue leaving behind her husband Bhabatosh Guha Roy, the defendant No. 1 as her only heir now deceased, had inherited and possessed all properties left by Ashalata Guha Roy. The plaintiff/respondent had filed application under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act for grant of letters of administration in his favour on the score that he is adopted son of Ashalata Guha Roy and one of legatees under the Will left by Ashalata Guha Roy. Defendant No. 1 during trial, specifically disputed the claim of the plaintiff as the adopted son of Ashalata Guha Roy and on the genuineness of the Will allegedly left by Ashalata Guha Roy. It is also submitted that the Will has not been probated and some person purporting to be executor filed probate case simply to withdraw the same latter on. The learned Judge granted the letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by the impugned judgment on scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the parties to the proceeding. It is also submitted that the Will has not been probated and some person purporting to be executor filed probate case simply to withdraw the same latter on. The learned Judge granted the letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by the impugned judgment on scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the parties to the proceeding. According to the defendant No. 1 Bhabatosh Guha Roy, the plaintiff/respondent was never treated by him and his wife Ashalata Guha Roy as their adopted son because the defendant Bhabatosh Guha Roy, since deceased had number of children begotten out of second marriage with Gouri Guha Roy whom he had married in the year 1964 and further that the properties in question were actually purchased by the said defendant No. 1 in the benam of first wife Ashalata Guha Roy. 3. As regards the finding as to whether the plaintiff is or is not the adopted son of Ashalata Guha Roy, learned Trial Judge appraised the evidence adduced by Bhabatosh Guha Roy examined on commission who had admitted that Kumar Kanti Guha Roy, plaintiff/respondent herein was reared up by him from his childhood and that he was picked up from the road in Jalpaiguri by the local people and given to him which story was unbelievable in view of the fact that said plaintiff/respondent was the son of his sister-in-law and he used to address him as father and Ashalata Guha Roy as his mother and he was got admitted to Narendrapur Ramkrishna Mission School showing him as the son of said Bhabatosh Guha Roy and Ashalata Guha Roy in the Admission Register. He had also purchased one car bearing No. WMA 258 for the plaintiff/respondent. Learned Judge found from the evidence-on-record that the relationship between Ashalata Guha Roy and Bhabatosh Guha Roy became strained because he married one Gouri Devi for the second time which is reflected from certified copy of the order dated 05.9.1963 passed in MAT. Suit No. 21/63 Exhibit-1 which was instituted against Bhabatosh Guha Roy by Ashalata Guha Roy for restitution of conjugal rights and for annulment of the subsequent marriage with Gouri Devi by a decree of nullity. Suit No. 21/63 Exhibit-1 which was instituted against Bhabatosh Guha Roy by Ashalata Guha Roy for restitution of conjugal rights and for annulment of the subsequent marriage with Gouri Devi by a decree of nullity. Said Bhabatosh Guha Roy had withdrawn himself from the society of Ashalata Guha Roy on and from 01.6.1962 whereas she had made attempts to bring him back to his normal ways of life but in vain as he was found living with Gouri Devi in a separate house at 133A, Rashbehari Avenue, Top Floor, Calcutta, as husband and wife whom he had married in July, 1962 and the said suit was decreed and thus, it was observed that the husband and wife relationship between Bhabatosh Guha Roy and Ashalata Guha Roy was bitter and left the latter in 1962 after second marriage with Gouri Devi, therefore, the plea of Bhabotosh that after the death of Ashalata Guha Roy, he had married Gouri Devi for the second time was not accepted by the learned Trial Court. 4. In regard to the execution of the Will, the learned Trial Judge made observation on the evidence of Bhabatosh Guha Roy who pleaded ignorance about the execution and registration of the Will. Certified copy of the Will produced by the plaintiff/respondent herein was admitted in evidence as Exhibit-9 and the learned Judge observed in regard to suspicious circumstances over execution of the Will bearing in mind the souring relationship between the husband and wife, and the original Will having been kept in the custody of Bhabatosh Guha Roy and not produced in the Court despite direction. Under such circumstance the certified copy of the Will Exhibit-1 was taken into consideration as per the provision of Section 237 of the Indian Succession Act which enjoins, when a Will has been lost or mislead since the testator's death, or has been destroyed by wrong or accident and not by any act of the testator and a copy of the draft of the Will has been preserved, probate may be granted of such copy or draft, limited until the original or properly authenticated copy of it is produced. 5. 5. The plaintiff/respondent herein relied on the certified copy of the Will, the original Will as having been lost or misplaced and letters of administration with the copy of Will annexed can be granted by admitting the same under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act as secondary evidence having been produced from proper custody (see. Satyacharan Pal v. Ashutosh Pal AIR 1953 Cal. 657 ). Thus, we find that the learned Trial Judge was correct in his finding that the Will in question was not disputed by said Bhabatosh Guha Roy in his evidence as forged document or having been obtained by exercise of fraud or misrepresentation. Copy of Higher Secondary Examination Certificate, Exhibit-8 of the respondent, his marriage invitation card reflected the name of Bhabatosh Guha Roy as father of the plaintiff/respondent. Besides, agreement for hiring safe deposit locker Exhibit-11 also revealed that Bhabatosh Guha Roy, since deceased had a safe deposit locker in Allahabad Bank, Gariahat Branch, Kolkata, bearing admitted signature of Ashalata Guha Roy which was admitted on evidence as Exhibit-10 which also bears the LTI of Ashalata Guha Roy on the document. The admitted signature appearing in the said agreement was compared with the signature in the said Register Exhibit-10 and on close examination, scrutiny and comparison, the learned Trial Judge believed both the signatures as that of the same person and concluded that the plaintiff/respondent had put an endeavour to establish that the Will in question is a genuine document executed by Ashalata Guha Roy voluntarily. The two attesting witnesses were examined on the behest of plaintiff at the trial who have stated that executrix was physically and mentally alert at the time of execution of the Will. No doubt the onus of proving Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus which the plaintiff has discharged his statutory obligation in proving the Will. 6. It may be that the Court may not venture in comparing the finger impression being the left thumb impression (LTI) with the admitted finger impression without assistance of any expert as it has been considered to be hazardous and risky as it involves an analysis of the characteristic of the admitted finger impression. 6. It may be that the Court may not venture in comparing the finger impression being the left thumb impression (LTI) with the admitted finger impression without assistance of any expert as it has been considered to be hazardous and risky as it involves an analysis of the characteristic of the admitted finger impression. We do opine that the comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual. But in this case admitted signature of Ashalata Guha Roy on the documents Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-10 were available before the learned Trial Judge for comparison by taking recourse to provision of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Provision aforesaid does give the power to the Court for comparison with that of the disputed signatures on the said documents. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for the judge to use his own eyes to compare the disputed signatures appearing on Exhibit-10 and Exhibit -11 as the Court is the master of masters and expert of experts. It was not only comparison of the finger impression or the finger print impression on the admitted documents rather the signatures put therein were all compared by taking into the facts and circumstances of the case of the plaintiff/respondent for grant of letters of administration inasmuch as the learned Judge found from the cogent evidence being the certificate of Higher Secondary Examination Exhibit-8, School Admission Register. Finding no evidence to the contrary, the learned Trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion to grant letters of administration on the certified copy of the Will by invoking the provision of Section 237 of the Indian Succession Act. 7. With regard to the provision of Section 229 of the Indian Succession Act the learned Judge did not find any lacuna in terms of the case presented before him. There were two suits being Act 39 of 54/84 and Act 39 of 58/87. The previous suit was withdrawn by the executor and the subsequent one was dismissed for default in which an application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC for restoration was filed but that was dismissed but no further steps were taken by the executor to the Will and such dismal conduct on the part of the executor by necessary implication was taken into consideration that they had renounced their executorship. This is what is enjoined by the provision of Section 229 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 which spells out that when a person appointed an executor has not renounced the executorship, letters of administration shall not be granted to any other person until a citation has been issued calling upon the executor to accept or renounce his executorship provided that when one or more of several executors have proved a Will, Court may, on the death of the survivor of those who have proved, grant letters of administration without citing those who have not proved. 8. Section 230 provides that a renunciation once made in presence of the Judge, or by a writing singed by the renouncing person, is final and precludes him from ever thereafter applying for probate of Will. We find that the executors have not taken recourse for revocation of the letters of administration before the Trial Court on being aggrieved by the order issuing certificate for letters of administration in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and so far no right has been exercised by the executors to the Will for grant of probate over the Will. 9. We are of the view that letters of administration with a copy of the Will may be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case by taking into consideration the dismal conduct of the executor who did not proceed with the probate suit within the limited time and we hold, therefore, that the appellants have no legal right to maintain the instant appeal. In the context of the discussion above having appraised the evidence on record and on perusal of the impugned judgment, we do not find any substantial ground to interfere into the judgment impugned and no legal impediment in issuing certificate of letters of administration in respect of the estate left by deceased Ashalata Guha Roy in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. In the result, appeal is hereby dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Rakesh Tiwari, J. - I agree.