JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application for probate of the alleged last will and testament of one Kamal Krishna Mitter dated 6th September, 2002. He is said to have executed this Will a little over three and half months before his death. He died a bachelor on 26th December, 2002 at the age of 84 years. 2. He was an attorney by profession and lived in premises no. 89A, Shyambazar Street, Kolkata. The testator was one of the three sons of P.N. Mitter. His brothers were Amal Krishna Mitter and Bimal KrishnaMitter. What we know is that at the time of his death the son of Bimal K. Mitter, Sabyasachi Mitra along with this wife lived in the same dwelling house, separately. 3. By his will Kamal Krishna appointed an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India Dilip Kumar Saha as the executor. The will had two attesting witnesses, Amal Krishna Banik and Atanu Roychoudhury, both advocates and having their office at 1B, Old Post Office Street. From this office the testator’s father P.N. Mitter ran P.N. Mitter and Company, a firm of solicitors. 4. The testator had a cousin by the name of Nisha Sinha. On 6th September, 1982 she made and published a Will reciting there that for the last several years she was looked after by one Mamata Ghosh daughter of Kartick Chandra Ghosh. She devised and bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties including flat No. 11 at premises No. 13A, Balaram Ghosh Street Kolkata to this woman. On 29th September, 1983 Nisha Sinha died. 5. It appears from the submission of Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the propounder of the Will that after Nisha’s death Mamta Ghosh became the care taker of testator and started to live on the ground floor of the said premises with him. She got married, assumed the surname Bera and had a son Saptarshi. 6. So over whelmed was the testator by her care and sense of responsibility that by his said last Will and Testament, he devised and bequeathed his entire movable and immovable properties including his 1/3 share in 89A, Shyambazar Street, Kolkata to Mamata Bera nee Ghosh for her life and upon her death to her son Saptarshi Bera with full power of disposition. 7. 7. In the recital to the said will amongst other things the testator said that he was living alone in the dwelling house. His nephew Sabyasachi and his wife did not take care of him. Mamata was like his daughter and took care of him like her father. 8. The grant of probate to the Will was opposed by the testator’s nephew Sabyasachi, who filed a caveat. 9. The following objections were taken to the Will. It is nonest as the signature of the testator was forged. The testator was coerced into signing the Will. It was signed in suspicious circumstances. Both the executor and the beneficiary are not blood relatives of the testator. The whole exercise of presenting a forged Will for probate was fraudulent. 10. Four witnesses were tendered by the plaintiff (1) Dilip Kumar Saha, Executor, (2) Atanu Roy Choudhury, one of the attesting witnesses, (3) Ahin Choudhury, Senior Advocate (4) Ashok Nain, consultant engineer and valuer. 11. In his evidence Dilip Kumar Saha said that he got the Will from one Shyamal Ganguli working in M/s P.N. Mitter and Co. He deposed that Mamata was like the testator’s daughter and that she and her family are in occupation of the testator’s 1/3 share in the said property. 12. The evidence of Atanu Roy Choudhury, one of the attesting witnesses is very important. He said that the testator was in a good physical and mental condition at the time of execution of the Will. He also said that the testator had signed the Will in his presence. From an overall assessment of the evidence there is no doubt that he was present when the testator signed the Will and saw him doing so. He also deposed that Amal Krishna Bera, the other witness was also present and attested the Will in his presence. 13. Ahin Choudhury, a senior member of the Bar, was close to the testator. He said from the box that it appeared from the conversation of the testator with him that Mamata Bera was like his daughter and thus the Will was not an unnatural one. 14. Rajnikanta Das, the expert witness brought by the plaintiff said that he had examined the specimen admitted signatures of the testator very closely and had noted the size of the alphabets, their alignment, writing characteristic, line quality, etc, under a magnifying glass. 14. Rajnikanta Das, the expert witness brought by the plaintiff said that he had examined the specimen admitted signatures of the testator very closely and had noted the size of the alphabets, their alignment, writing characteristic, line quality, etc, under a magnifying glass. The long signature of the testator on the last page of the Will as well as the short signatures in the other pages tallied with one another and with the admitted specimen signatures. Since, the testator was considerably old his hands trembled while writing and hence both the long and short signatures reflected this tremor. 15. The evidence of Ashoke Nain, also called as a witness by the plaintiff matched the evidence given by the other witnesses. 16. The defendant called only one witness Purushottam Chatterjee, claiming to be a hand writing expert. First of all, I would like to comment on the conduct of this witness. After his examination in chief was concluded he was called on 26th August, 2016 for cross-examination. He did not present himself for examination that day. This Court recorded by an order passed on that day itself that he was to be present on 7th September, 2016 for cross-examination. Thereafter, he was cross-examined on 9th and 23rd September, 2016. On the latter day his cross-examination was concluded. He remarked that from an examination of the admitted signatures the testator may have had loss of pen control and poor line quality due to his age and physical disability. Yet, the disputed signatures showed consistency and pen and line control. These signatures were made at a little later point of time. He tried to suggest that the signature of the testator of the Will did not match his admitted signatures. They were different in their physical characteristics, alignment, slant etc,. He also tried to depose that the testator would not normally sign in initials and that by putting initials the manufacturer of the Will tried to avoid replication of forgery. His evidence was not at all convincing. There is every reason to disbelieve his evidence because he was very shaky during cross-examination. He could not demonstrate or substantiate in any convincing way that the signatures of the said testator on the Will was any different from his admitted signatures. 17. On the closure of evidence several opportunities were given to the defendant to appear but unfortunately he did not appear. He could not demonstrate or substantiate in any convincing way that the signatures of the said testator on the Will was any different from his admitted signatures. 17. On the closure of evidence several opportunities were given to the defendant to appear but unfortunately he did not appear. Thereafter, the suit was fixed for argument. 18. Only Mr. Ghosh, for the plaintiff made his argument. 19. The point to be answered in an application for grant of probate is whether the plaintiff propounder of the Will has been able to prove the document. 20. First and foremost the evidence of the handwriting expert for the plaintiff Rajnikanta Das was quite convincing. He was able to demonstrate before this Court that the signatures of the testator on the admitted documents matched the signature on the Will substantially. The initials done by the testator on the pages of the Will before the last page were his hand writing. He also proved that the changes that occurred in the signature were normal due to old age, the neurological illness the testator suffered from and so on. His signature substantially tallied with the admitted signatures in terms of characteristics, alignment, line control, slant and so on. 21. One of the attesting witnesses Atanu Roychoudhury is an advocate of this Court. He deposed that he saw the testator sign the Will and/or Will was signed in his presence. Furthermore, in the presence of the testator he put his signature on the Will as an attesting witness. 22. Nearly all the witnesses including Ahin Choudhuri a member of the Bar deposed that the testator had talked to them about Mamata Bera, how she looked after her as a daughter and how he was disposed to bequeath his property to her. The recital to the Will corroborates this evidence. 23. In my opinion, the Will has been proved to have been validly executed by the testator. 24. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the Will was unnatural. 25. In the later part of the proceedings the defendant did not appear in Court. Therefore, the evidence led by the plaintiff could not be displaced by him. 26. In my opinion, the plaintiff has been able to prove the Will. I grant probate thereof, in terms of prayer (c) of the application for grant of probate. The department will take steps for issuance of the grant expeditiously. 27. Therefore, the evidence led by the plaintiff could not be displaced by him. 26. In my opinion, the plaintiff has been able to prove the Will. I grant probate thereof, in terms of prayer (c) of the application for grant of probate. The department will take steps for issuance of the grant expeditiously. 27. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.