JUDGMENT : SHEKHAR B SARAF, J. 1. This title suit T.S. No. 15 of 2017 arises from a Probate application being P.L.A. No. 269 of 2008. The probate application has been registered at the instance of Sri Nand Kishore Bagrodia, seeking grant of probate of the will executed by deceased Makhanlal Bagrodia on 25th December, 2004. 2. P.L.A. No. 269 of 2008, was filed for grant of probate by the executor. The court through an order dated 23rd December, 2016 issued special citation upon the eight respondents namely: - 1) Smt. Chandrakala Devi Poddar (Eldest D/o - Late Makhanlal Bagrodia), 2) Smt. Sunita Parasramka (Youngest D/o Late Makhanlal Bagrodia), 3) Sri Rajesh Sha (Eldest Grandson of Late Makhanlal Bagrodia), 4) Sri Dinesh Sha (Youngest Grandson of Late Makhanlal Bagrodia), 5) Smt. Manju Agarwal (Eldest Granddaughter of Late Makhanlal Bagrodia), 6) Smt. Anju Kheria (Youngest Granddaughter of Late Makhanlal Bagrodia), 7) Sri Saurabh Sha (Youngest Grandson of Late Makhanlal Bagrodia) and 8) Smt. Nidhi Kejriwal (Granddaughter of Late Makhanlal Bagrodia). 3. A caveator by the name Smt. Chandrakala Devi Poddar came forward, who claimed to be the eldest daughter of the deceased Late Makhanlal Bagrodia and sister of the executor. By the order dated 18th May, 2017 final opportunity was granted to the caveatrix to file an Affidavit-in-support of the caveat within four weeks from date, failing which the matter would be treated as a non-contentious cause. Thereafter, an Affidavit-in-support of the caveat was filed on 14th June, 2017 and the probate application stood converted to a Testamentary Suit being T.S. No. 15 of 2017. 4. A Will, which is a testamentary document, has to be proved as per the provisions contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, a bare inspection of the said section would indicate the manner in which a Will has to be executed for it to be recognised as a valid Will, which includes that the testator shall sign the Will in a manner to give effect to the said Will and the said Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of them being witness to the fact that the testator had signed the said Will. 5. 5. A coalesce reading of Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 shows that if a document is alleged to be signed by the person, the signature is to be proved to be of that person and the attestation of the Will has to be proved through at least one attesting witness. 6. The present Will has been proved by the said Executor Sri Nand Kishore Bagrodia as the same would appear from the examination-in-chief. In course of examination, the executor has proved that the signature appearing as Exhibit - B/1 is the signature of his father Late Makhanlal Bagrodia, the testator and the signatures marked as Exhibits - B/2 and B/3 as that of the two attesting witnesses, Mr. Ballav Pachasia and Mr. Narayan Das Agarwal. The executor also clearly mentioned the sequence of signatures of the testator and the attesting witnesses as mandated under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 7. The second witness brought forward by the propounder was one of the attesting witnesses to the said Will, namely Mr. Narayan Das Agarwal. He is the surviving witness and he deposed before the Court. In his examination-in-chief he has clearly stated and identified the signatures of the testator and that of himself and Mr. Ballav Pachasia as required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The said attesting witness also confirmed the sequence of signatures of the testator and attesting witnesses. He further deposed that Mr. Makhanlal Bagrodia called him to his house on 25th December, 2004 and when he reached there Mr. Makhanlal Bagrodia, Sri Nand Kishore Bagrodia and Mr. Ballav Pachisia along with some other family members were already present at the house. Thus, it can be safely said that the execution of the said Will remains unscathed as contemplated under Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The execution of Will has been duly proved by the surviving attesting witness and I find no reason to disbelieve the same. 8. Furthermore, there has been no cross examination either of Sri Nand Kishore Bagrodia or Mr. Narayan Das Agarwal as the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the caveatrix refused to do so. Moreover, no witness has been put to the stand on behalf of the caveatrix. 8. Furthermore, there has been no cross examination either of Sri Nand Kishore Bagrodia or Mr. Narayan Das Agarwal as the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the caveatrix refused to do so. Moreover, no witness has been put to the stand on behalf of the caveatrix. As the propounder has proved the attestation of the Will beyond any shadow of doubt by adducing the two witnesses and none of the suspicious circumstances as made out in the affidavit in support of caveat has been proved, there appear no circumstances to deny the probate of the will. 9. Moreover, none of the legal heirs of the testator as indicated in paragraph 9 of the petition, have filed caveat or affidavit in support of caveat to challenge the grant. Only one affidavit of the Caveatrix has been filed challenging the grant of the probate of this will, but no one has come forward in support of the same. 10. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the probate as prayed for. This suit is decreed in terms of the prayers (a) made in the petition. There shall be no orders as to costs.