JUDGMENT : 1. The Court : This T.S. No.4 of 2015 arises from P.L.A. 360 of 2013. P.L.A. 360 of 2013 has been registered at the instance of Supriya Biswas seeking grant of probate on the Will executed by deceased Samir Kumar Biswas, executed on 29.11.1999. Citations were issued to Smt. Rita Neogi and Munmun Neogi being the daughters of the testator. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application being G.A. No.380 of 2015, praying for treating the probate proceeding as a ‘contentious cause’ inasmuch as after issuance of citations. In pursuance of an order dated 2nd September, 2014, Smt. Munmun Neogi appeared and lodged a caveat on 9th September, 2014 and filed an affidavit in support of the caveat on 16th September, 2014. The said application was disposed of by the Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen by an order dated 19th February, 2015 whereby prayers (a) and (b) in the application (G.A. No.380 of 2015) was allowed. The prayers were as under :- “(a) That the department be directed to set down the matter under contentious cause and Testamentary Suit number be allotted and your petitioner be described as the plaintiff in the said proceeding and the respondent be described as the defendant; (b) That the petition for grant of Letters of Administration of the Last Will and Testament dated 29.11.1999 of the deceased above named be treated as Plaint and the affidavit in support of caveat filed by the Caveatrix Smt. Munmun Neogi be treated as Written Statement.” 2. There was a direction upon the plaintiff to prepare a comprehensive Judges Brief of Documents within a period of two weeks, which he filed subsequently. The matter was taken up on 26th July, 2017 but no one appeared in support of the affidavit filed by the defendant Munmun Neogi. However, on the said date, time to complete discovery and inspection as earlier directed by order dated 11th November, 2016 was extended for a period of two weeks. The matter appeared thereafter on 10th August, 2017 when no one appeared in support of the affidavit of Munmun Neogi. This Court framed issues after hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The following issues were framed :- 1. “Whether the unregistered Will and Testament of the Testator Mr. Samir Kunar Biswas, is genuine and valid Will? 2. The matter appeared thereafter on 10th August, 2017 when no one appeared in support of the affidavit of Munmun Neogi. This Court framed issues after hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The following issues were framed :- 1. “Whether the unregistered Will and Testament of the Testator Mr. Samir Kunar Biswas, is genuine and valid Will? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of probate on the alleged last Will and Testament dated 29th November, 1999 executed by deceased Samir Kumar Biswas? 3. Whether the execution of the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances? 4. Whether the Will has been signed by the Testator or not? 5. Whether the requirement under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, has been complied with in the execution of the Will?” 3. Plaintiff has made out a case that the testator, Samir Kumar Biswas, died testate on 24th February, 2009 leaving behind his last Will and Testament dated 29.11.1999 in Bengali. It has been clailmed that according to the Will, the plaintiff, Supriya Biswas, son of the testator, is the legal heir and sole beneficiary to the aforesaid last Will and Testament of the deceased. The plaintiff has given the details of the assets in the affidavit of assets affirmed on 7th September, 2013. 4. In support of the plaint case Mr. Supriya Biswas was examined on the box on 15th September, 2017. He deposed that Samir Kumar Biswas was his father. He deposed that his father executed a Will which he found after his death and thereafter he brought it to the notice of his learned Advocates. According to him, his father died in 2009. He has relied on a document (Ext. C) which is a death certificate of his father. He has identified the Will (Ext.A). He has identified the signature of his father, Samir Kumar Biswas, being Exhibit A1 and A2. 5. In question no.19, when he was asked that whether he could find any other signature on the document, he deposed that signature of Mr. Ranjit Kumar Ghosh and Mr. Arka Kumar Ghosh were appearing on the document, Exhibit A. He also confirmed that he knew Ranjjit Kumar Ghosh being the father of Mr. Arka Kumar Ghosh. 5. In question no.19, when he was asked that whether he could find any other signature on the document, he deposed that signature of Mr. Ranjit Kumar Ghosh and Mr. Arka Kumar Ghosh were appearing on the document, Exhibit A. He also confirmed that he knew Ranjjit Kumar Ghosh being the father of Mr. Arka Kumar Ghosh. He deposed that Ranjit Kumar Ghosh was a Judge at Alipore Court and had signed a probate of his grandfather, Santosh Kumar Biswas and, accordingly, he knew the signature of Ranjit Kumar Ghosh. 6. Witness deposed that his father was suffering from mental infirmity only a couple of days before he died. But when the Will was executed he had no such ailment. 7. In question no.32, this witness was asked as to why the testator left his two daughters in the Will, in answer he deposed that his grandfather also deprived his daughters in his Will and his father (testator) followed the same thing and left his married daughters. He further deposed that however, relationship with the daughters was cordial with the testator. 8. On behalf of the plaintiff another witness, namely, Arka Kumar Ghosh, was also examined on 20th September, 2017. This witness deposed that the Will (Ext. A) was prepared by his father late Ranjit Kumar Ghosh and at the time of execution he was asked to be a witness in the Will. When page 12 of the probate petition (Exhibit A) was shown before the witness, he identified the same to be the Will left by Samir Kumar Biswas. When page 13 of the petition that is, 2nd page of the Exhibit A was shown to the witness, he deposed that signature of his maternal uncle as well as his deceased father was appearing on the said page. He deposed that the Will was executed on 29th November, 1999. He identified the signature to be the signatures of the deceased being Exhibit A1 and A2. The witness confirmed that he put his signatures in presence of his maternal uncle (testator) as well as his deceased father and he signed on the Will in presence of his maternal uncle (Samir Kumar Biswas, the testator). The witness deposed that his father passed away on 11th November, 2004 and he produced a death certificate which has been marked as Exhibit B. 9. The witness deposed that his father passed away on 11th November, 2004 and he produced a death certificate which has been marked as Exhibit B. 9. Munmun Neogi filed an affidavit in support of the caveat but she has chosen not to contest the probate proceeding. In her affidavit she has alleged that the deceased Samir Kumar Biswas died testate and further alleged that the Will dated 29th November, 1999 has been created by Supriya Biswas and his associates. She alleges that execution of Will was procured by duress, menace and with undue influence. She further alleges that the Will is a suspicious document. 10. From the evidence adduced by the witnesses and on consideration of the Exhibits on record, there is no doubt that the testator signed the Will voluntarily. Both the witnesses have identified the signature of the testator on the Will. The propounder has duly proved his father’s signature on the Will and the attesting witness has also proved the execution of the Will by the testator. Mode of proof of handwriting and/or signature of testator or of the attesting witnesses, dead or alive, is the same as in the case of any other document. It is well settled in law that mode of proving the Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator was required. In the present case, evidence as adduced on behalf of the plaintiff does not give rise to any suspicious circumstances that the Will was not executed by the testator. One of the attesting witnesses, Arka Kumar Ghosh, is an officer of this Court. He deposed in absence of first attesting witness, who passed away on 11th November, 2004. The said witness, Arka Kumar Ghosh, identified that his father signed in the Will. He also identified that his maternal uncle, Samir Kumar Biswas, signed on the Will on 29th November, 1999. No suspicion can arise in the execution of the Will. He deposed in absence of first attesting witness, who passed away on 11th November, 2004. The said witness, Arka Kumar Ghosh, identified that his father signed in the Will. He also identified that his maternal uncle, Samir Kumar Biswas, signed on the Will on 29th November, 1999. No suspicion can arise in the execution of the Will. The defendant has made general allegation that the Will was procured under duress or undue influence but she has not denied the signature of Samir Kumar Biswas in the Will. She pointed out in the affidavit that instead of “Sameer Kumar Biswas”, the executant used to sign “Samir Kumar Biswas”. Raising such plea she has raised suspicion based on the said spelling but when the executant has been signed in Bengali, whether it is “Sameer” or “Samir”, makes no difference. On a close scrutiny it can be seen that there is no variance between the signatures on the Will and that apart no where it is disputed that the Will has not been signed by the testator rather it has been pointed out in paragraph 3(c) that “Executants never signed any document as ‘Samir Kumar Biswas’.” When the executant has signed in Bengali this objection cannot be sustained. She further objected in paragraph 3(d) that “Signature of executants in first page of the will is found in bottom of the will instead of top right hand side. The practice in our country is that the documents are signed by the parties executing them on top.” This objection is purely a technical objection. It is immaterial where the executant has signed and there is no specific rule where to sign on the Will. Once signature is not disputed and it has been duly attested by the attesting witnesses and when the signatures are proved, genuineness of the Will is also proved. 11. It is immaterial where the executant has signed and there is no specific rule where to sign on the Will. Once signature is not disputed and it has been duly attested by the attesting witnesses and when the signatures are proved, genuineness of the Will is also proved. 11. By her affidavit the defendant has not come forward to challenge the execution of the Will, nor has she produced any witness to dispute the authenticity of the execution of the Will, it is profitable to discuss about the essential tests for valid execution of a Will – (a) According to the provisions of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Will must be signed by the testator or the testator shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his discretion. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a ‘Will’. (c) The Will must be attested by at least two witnesses each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will or has seen some other person signing the Will, in his presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. 12. From the discussion made hereinbefore it will be clear that requirement under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been duly fulfilled. 12. From the discussion made hereinbefore it will be clear that requirement under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been duly fulfilled. According to the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, only one attesting witness, if alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence, has to be called to prove the execution of the document, it would be incumbent on the propounder or the person claiming under the Will to prove that the said document was executed as required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and then only the document can be given effect to as a Will. One of the attesting witnesses has deposed in the box and has proved the execution of the Will. 13. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the execution of the Will. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the Letter of Administration as prayed for. 14. Suit is decreed in terms of prayer (a) to the petition. Caveat, accordingly, stands discharged. 15. Department is directed to draw up and complete the decree as expeditiously as possible. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all usual formalities.