Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 356 (GAU)

Lohit Kakoti v. Puspa Bora

2019-03-16

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. T. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 although notice had been duly served. None appears on call for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who had refused to accept notice of this appeal. Moreover, as per order dated 21.2.2018, the name of respondent Nos. 2 and 6 were struck off on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and that the appeal was held to have abated as against respondent No. 8. By order dated 20.8.2018, the name of respondent No. 10 was struck off on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. By this appeal under section 299 of the Succession Act, 1925 the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 5.6.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar in Misc. (Probate) Case No. 63/2000, thereby dismissing the application for probate in respect of the last Will and testament of late Smt. Sarumai Kakoti, the testator. The appellant is the propounder of the last Will and testament of late Smt. Sarumai Kakoti. 3. The case of the petitioner in the probate petition filed under section 276 of the Succession Act, 1925 was that by an unregistered Will dated 18.4.1997, the testator had bequeathed a plot of land measuring 7B-1K-12L, covered by Dag Nos. 467 and 437, of P.P. No. 215, of Village-Charing Kakoti Gaon under Mouza-Murabazar, in the district of Sivasagar, Assam. The testatrix expired on 27.4.1997. The trial proceeded ex parte against the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Although the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 had contested the case by cross-examining the 3 plaintiff's witnesses, but they did not tender defendant's witnesses. 4. In the probate proceeding, the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 had filed their joint objection and the respondent No. 10 had filed her separate objection. The stand of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 was that the Will was forged. 4. In the probate proceeding, the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 had filed their joint objection and the respondent No. 10 had filed her separate objection. The stand of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 was that the Will was forged. It was stated that the land for which Will was prepared belonged to late Rameswari Kakoti, wife of late Kon Kakoti, who died about 12 years ago leaving behind 8 daughters, namely, (1) Amarawati Baruah, (2) Sonlata Bora, (3) Aideow Bordoloi, (4) Puna Kalita, (5) Ghanalata Boruah, (6) Rupa Phukan, (7) Subama Kakoty, and (8) Sarumai Kakoty and, as such, all daughters inherited ?th share in the said land and accordingly, it was also stated that the testatrix did not have any right or authority to execute the Will in respect of the entire land measuring 7B-1K-12L. It was also stated that the testatrix was lying seriously ill for last 3 months before her death, as such, she did not execute the Will on 18.4.1997. The respondent No. 10 had stated that the testatrix was in coma since last 1 year before her death on 27.4.1997 she was suffering from liver cancer and was living on saline only and was not in a position to rise from bed. It was further stated that since 15.1.1997 till the death of the testatrix, (1) Smt. Subama Kakoty, (2) Gitanjali Phukan, daughter of Smt. Rupa Phukan, (3) Smt. Nabojani Duwarah, daughter of late Dhonolata Barua, and (4) Sri Rajani Kakaty, son of late Dindi Kakaty were in attendance of the testatrix till her death and till the shraddha ceremony was performed by Sri Rajani Kakaty, son of late Dindi Kakaty after a month and that during this period, the appellant, who is a resident of Guwahati had never visited the testatrix. It was stated that, therefore, the Will was a forged document. It was also stated that the testatrix had read upto Class-III and used to sign in Assamese, so the thumb impression in the Will was not genuine. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, although the probate proceeding was not converted to suit, the learned trial court framed the following 7 issues for trial on 31.8.2002, which were recast as under while delivering the judgment, they are: 1. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, although the probate proceeding was not converted to suit, the learned trial court framed the following 7 issues for trial on 31.8.2002, which were recast as under while delivering the judgment, they are: 1. Whether Smt. Sarumai Kakoti executed the Will in question on 18.4.1997 in favour of the petitioner Shri Lalit Kakoti in respect of the land, mentioned in schedule of the petition? 2. Whether at the time the testatrix was in sound health and mind? and 3. Whether the petitioner (Lalit Kakoti) manufactured the said Will, without obtaining any signature of the testatrix for the purpose of grabbing the said land, since Sarumai Kakoti was unmarried and left no immediate successor to inherit her share in the entire estate of late Rameswari Kakoti and as a consequence, if the petitioner is entitled to get probate in respect of the land in the Will? 6. In support of his case, the appellant had examined three witnesses, viz., Lalit Kakoti (PW-1), Paramananda Hazarika (PW-2) and Hara Kanta Nath (PW-3), who were all cross-examined by the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and discharged. As stated herein before, the respondents did not adduce any evidence. 7. The appellant examined himself as PW-1. He had stated that the testatrix had bequeathed 7B-1K-12L land in his favour for the purpose of constructing a Monikut of a Namghar on the bequeathed land and accordingly, he had constructed the same by spending Rs. 1 lakh and handed it to the public for the purpose of Nam Kirtan. He had stated that the testatrix had bequeathed the land to him in the presence of witnesses and that she was in a sound mind with good health. The Will was exhibited as Ext. 1. In his cross-examination, he said that he could not recollect what document is Ext. 1. It was submitted that the testatrix inherited the said land from her ancestor and that the ancestral land was not partitioned. PW-1 had admitted that the testatrix had no brother but they were 8 sisters. He did not know if other persons had share in the said bequeathed land. He could not state the exact size of Manikut. 1. It was submitted that the testatrix inherited the said land from her ancestor and that the ancestral land was not partitioned. PW-1 had admitted that the testatrix had no brother but they were 8 sisters. He did not know if other persons had share in the said bequeathed land. He could not state the exact size of Manikut. He had stated that prior to filing of probate case, he had got the land mutated in his name in place of the testatrix, showing that he had got the land by way of gift. PW-1 had stated that he had retired as D.G.M. of Assam Cooperative Apex Bank. He had denied that he had manufactured a fake Will to deprive the co-sharers of their respective share in the land or that the testatrix had no right to bequeath the said plot of land. 8. PW-2 had stated in his evidence-on-affidavit that about 6 years back he was requested to come to the house of the testatrix and on his arrival, he found 10 persons waiting in her residence. The testatrix expressed her willingness to bequeath her landed property in favour of the propounder of the Will for the purpose of constructing Manikut of a Nam Ghar on the bequeathed land. The testatrix produced a written Will and stated that she had got the Will written at Sivasagar Tardni Office and allowed them to read the same. After reading the Will in presence of the testatrix and other people, the testatrix had put her signature and subsequent to her signature he had put his signature as a witness in the Will. It was also stated that as per the last Will, the propounder of Will had constructed a Manikut of a Nam Ghar and handed over to the public in the year 1988. He had stated that the testatrix had executed the Will in a sound mind with good health. In his cross-examination, he had stated that Sri Bijit Kakoty, the brother of the propounder of Will was his son-in-law. He had stated that he was 90 years old on 5.2.2005, and that the testatrix was younger to him and she had died about 5 years back. The house of testatrix was about 2 furlong away from his house. In his cross-examination, he had stated that Sri Bijit Kakoty, the brother of the propounder of Will was his son-in-law. He had stated that he was 90 years old on 5.2.2005, and that the testatrix was younger to him and she had died about 5 years back. The house of testatrix was about 2 furlong away from his house. He had also stated that they were 8 sisters including the testatrix and that the land they had inherited was ancestral one, inherited from their father. He also admitted that the sisters of propounder looked after her. He had stated that public were called to the house of the propounder and she told the public that she would transfer her share of land measuring 8 bigha to the propounder. He could not state who wrote the Will and that he was not present when the Will was written. According to him, public assembled at about 10.00/11.00 a.m. He had forgotten the time, date, month and season of that time. He stated that the propounder had read the contents of the Will to the public. He had also stated that it was not true that neither public assembled in the house of the testatrix or that she had executed any Will in favour of the propounder. He had stated that she had verbally transferred the land to the propounder. He denied that the propounder was not in a sound state of body and mind or that she was in her death-bed. He could not state the area of the ancestral land of the testatrix or whether the same was partitioned amongst them. He had stated that the Manikut of the Nam Ghar was about 15 feet × 20 feet. He denied that the Manikut of the Nam Ghar was not situated on the land belonging to the testatrix and her sisters. He denied the suggestion that as the testatrix had left no heir, the testator with the intention to grab the ejmali (i.e., common/joint) land of the sisters was claiming land on the strength of Will and that being the father-in-law of propounder's brother, he had extended help by giving false evidence in court. In his re-examination, PW-2 had stated that Ext. 1 was the Will and Ext. 1(1) and Ext. 1(2) were the signature of the testatrix which she had put in his presence and Ext. In his re-examination, PW-2 had stated that Ext. 1 was the Will and Ext. 1(1) and Ext. 1(2) were the signature of the testatrix which she had put in his presence and Ext. 193) was his signature as witness. In his further re-cross-examination, PW-2 had stated that he did not know who wrote the Will and when and where. He had stated that the Will was brought out by the testator and its contents were read out before the public by one Akon Chandra Dutta. 9. PW-3 was the Village Gaonburah of Singibil and Kakoti Khanda of Morebazar Khanda. In his evidence-on-affidavit, he had stated that about 6 years back, he was requested to come to the residence of the testatrix and on arrival he found that 10 persons waiting in her residence. His deposition was similar to the statements made in the evidence-on-affidavit by the PW-2. In his cross-examination, he had stated that during her last days in life, the testator had been suffering from old age ailments. He also stated that the testatrix were 8 sisters. He could not give the date, month and year when the public had assembled in the house of the testatrix, but it was 4/5 years back. According to him, public had assembled at about 12.00 noon and the testatrix had informed the public assembled there that she had gifted her share of land to the propounder for construction of a Nam Ghar One Mandal (land revenue staff) was also present there. He stated that the propounder had shown the Will to them, but he could not state how wrote it or where. He was not present when Will was written. He had stated that one Akon Dutta had read over the contents of the Will to the public and thereafter, it was handed over the propounder. According to him, the testator had died 6 days after public had assembled there. He denied that prior to her death, the testatrix remained bed-ridden for several months and she was too weak both physically and mentally. He denied that he had falsely deposed for financial gain or that neither public had assembled in house of testatrix not she had handed over any plot of land to the propounder by executing a Will. He denied that the Manikut of the Nam Ghar was not constructed on the land belonging to the testatrix and her sisters. He denied that he had falsely deposed for financial gain or that neither public had assembled in house of testatrix not she had handed over any plot of land to the propounder by executing a Will. He denied that the Manikut of the Nam Ghar was not constructed on the land belonging to the testatrix and her sisters. He could not say the dag and patta number of the land where the Manikut was constructed or of the bequeathed land. In his re-examination, FW-3 had stated that on 18.4.1997, content of Will was read out by Akon Dutta, Secretary. Ext. 1 was the Will and Ext. 1(1) and Ext. 1(2) was the signature of executrix and Ext. 1(4) was his signature. He had stated that PW-2 was also sitting with him and he too had put his signature on the Will. He could not state if the ancestral property of the eight sisters including the testatrix was partitioned. He denied that the land belonging to them was still being owned/possessed ejmali. He denied that the testatrix was seriously ill and unable to speak or do anything 10/12 days prior to her death. He denied that the propounder never looked after the testatrix. He had stated that Akon Dutta was the President and Secretary of the Nam Ghar. 10. The learned trial court, upon examining the evidence on record had referred to the evidence of the three PWs. In respect of issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the learned trial court had observed that the Will was of three pages, out of which recital of Will was in two pages and signatures of some persons were on the third page, but the name of the writer of the Will was not mentioned. The writer of the Will was one Anil Das, Advocate's Clerk holding Card No. 23/1997, who was not examined. It was held that there was nothing to indicate that the third page was a continuation of Will as in second page of Will, there was no mention of Will having third page. The learned trial court was of the view that as per section 61 of the Succession Act, it was the burden to prove that the Will was forged one or obtained under undue influence or coercion or by practising fraud on the testator was on the objector, who brings such allegations. The learned trial court was of the view that as per section 61 of the Succession Act, it was the burden to prove that the Will was forged one or obtained under undue influence or coercion or by practising fraud on the testator was on the objector, who brings such allegations. A suspicious circumstance as to physical and mental incapability of the testator was also on the objectors who took such plea, for which the learned trial court had relied on the case of (a) Daulat Ram v. Sodha, (2005) 1 SCC 40 : AIR 2005 SC 233 , (b) Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty, (2005) 2 SCC 784 : AIR 2005 SC 780 , and (c) Meenakshiammal (dead) through LRs. v. Chandrasekaran, (2005) 1 SCC 280 , as cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. By referring to the case of Durlabh Chandra Bhattacharjie v. Atul Barthakur, 2005 (4) GLT 306, it was held that probate Court cannot open the chapter of title of the testatrix over the bequeathed land. 11. Upon discussing the evidence of the three PWs, the learned trial court had held that the testatrix had died at her old age, she was unmarried and before her death, she was suffering from severe ailments and prepared fake document (Ext. 1), which differs in date and place with oral evidence, bearing different types of signatures of testatrix in different pages, having no link of page No. 3 with page No. 2 and got the document written by Anil Das, an Advocate's Clerk on 17.4.1997, when the testatrix was not present, got it attested by his own men and managed to get his name mutated in collusion with land revenue staff and then filed the case for probate. These were held to be existence of suspicious circumstances with substantial contradictory facts. Resultantly, the probate proceeding was dismissed. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has meticulously read over the probate petition, two objections and evidence on record. She has submitted that although the objector Nos. 8, 9 and 10 filed their written objection and cross-examined the PWs, but they did not lead any evidence in the case and, as such, the evidence of the PWs had remained rebutted. She has submitted that the learned trial court had dismissed the probate petition only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, without any corroborative evidence on record. 8, 9 and 10 filed their written objection and cross-examined the PWs, but they did not lead any evidence in the case and, as such, the evidence of the PWs had remained rebutted. She has submitted that the learned trial court had dismissed the probate petition only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, without any corroborative evidence on record. By reading out the evidence of the PWs, it is submitted that the respondents could not demolish the evidence of the said witnesses, and that considering the old age of the PWs 2 and 3, it was not unnatural that they had forgotten the date, month and year of execution of the said Will, which was wrongly construed by the learned trial court out of context. She further submits that it was the burden of the objectors to prove that the Will was forged, but the learned trial court had wrongly shifted the said burden on the appellant and dismissed the case. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant had also relied on the cases dted by the appellant's counsel before the learned trial court. 13. At the outset, it is seen that the learned trial court had not entered into the question of title of the testatrix over the bequeathed land. In this connection, it is too well settled that a probate court is duty bound only to see as to whether execution of a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstance and if so, whether the propounder succeeded to repeal all iota of suspicion. The limited responsibility of probate court is to see as to whether a Will was really executed being in sound and disposing state of mind and whether it was witnessed by at least two attesting witnesses. 14. In this regard, the learned trial court had rightly declined to adjudicate with regard to the issue of title. In this regard, it is well settled that the scope of the matter arising from probate proceedings is very limited. The scope of the matter is primarily and principally regarding the genuineness of the execution of the testament or Will. This part has been succinctly dealt with in a decision rendered by this court in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300 . The scope of the matter is primarily and principally regarding the genuineness of the execution of the testament or Will. This part has been succinctly dealt with in a decision rendered by this court in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300 . Amongst others, paragraphs 57 and 67 of the said decision spell out the scope of the enquiry in probate proceedings as under: “57. The 1925 Act in this case has nothing to do with the law of inheritance or succession which is otherwise governed by statutory laws or the custom, as the case may be. It makes detailed provisions as to how and in what manner an application for grant of probate is to be filed, considered and granted or refused. Rights and obligations of the parties as also the executors and administrators appointed by the court are laid down therein. Removal of the existing executors and administrators and appointment of subsequent executors are within the exclusive domain of the court. The jurisdiction of the probate court is limited being confined only to consider the genuineness of the Will. A question of title arising under the Act cannot be gone into the (sic. probate) proceedings. Construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of the probate court. ********* 67. In the recent judgment of Kamvaljit Singh Dhillon v. Hardyal Singh Dhillon, (2007) 11 SCC 357 this court, inter alia, relying upon Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 507 and upon referring to a catena of decisions of the High Court and this court, held that the probate court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself.” 15. Hence, the ratio culled out from the said judgment is that while granting a probate, the court would not decide any dispute with regard to title. A separate suit would be maintainable therefor. If probate is granted, they have a remedy in terms of section 263 of the 1925 Act also. Hence, this court confines itself only to the issue whether the execution of the ‘Will’ of which probate is prayed for has been satisfactorily proved and whether there are any suspicious circumstances impinging upon the execution of the Will. 16. If probate is granted, they have a remedy in terms of section 263 of the 1925 Act also. Hence, this court confines itself only to the issue whether the execution of the ‘Will’ of which probate is prayed for has been satisfactorily proved and whether there are any suspicious circumstances impinging upon the execution of the Will. 16. Thus, the only point of determination, which is required to be decided in this appeal is that whether there was sufficient materials before the learned trial court to justify the existence of suspicious circumstances in the execution of the last Will and testament of late Sarumai Kakoti (testatrix). 17. Having examined the materials on record, this court does find evidence to the effect that the testatrix was suffering from old age ailments, but there is no evidence to show that the testatrix was suffering from any serious ailments. Although the PW-3 had admitted in his cross-examination, he had stated that during her last days in life, the testator had been suffering from old age ailments, but in his further re-cross-examination, the said PW-3 had specifically denied that prior to her death, the testatrix had remained bed-ridden for and she was too weak both physically and mentally. It is seen that although the learned trial court had referred to three case citations to the effect that it was the burden of the objector to prove that the Will was forged one or obtained under undue influence or coercion or by practising fraud on the testator or existence of suspicious circumstances as to physical and mental incapability of the testator was on the objectors who brought such allegations of took such plea. Without such circumstances being proved, the circumstances as referred to above, were held to be suspicious circumstances concerning execution of the Will. 18. The probate petition contains a declaration by Sri Hara Kanta Nath (PW-3), who was one of the attesting witnesses, which is in due compliance of the requirement of section 281 of the Succession Act. However, in their respective evidence-on-affidavit, the PW-2 and PW-3 had not made any statement to the effect that the Will was signed by the testator in their presence and they had signed in the Will as attesting witnesses in the presence of the testatrix. However, in their respective evidence-on-affidavit, the PW-2 and PW-3 had not made any statement to the effect that the Will was signed by the testator in their presence and they had signed in the Will as attesting witnesses in the presence of the testatrix. In the evidence-on-affidavit, there is no statement by any of the three PWs that the Will was read out in the presence of public and all persons present had signed the Will as attesting witnesses. The Will (Ext. 1) had contained 10 signatures as attesting witnesses, but the PW-1, i.e., the propounder in his evidence-on-affidavit, had neither named any of the attesting witness, nor did he exhibit the signature of the attesting witnesses. 19. As per the statement of PW-2 in evidence-on-affidavit, he had stated in paragraph 4 — “That Sarumai Kakoti produced a written Will and reported that she got the Will written on the other day at Sivasagar Tarini Office and allowed us to read the same. After reading the Will in presence of the executants and other people, Sarumai Kakoti put her signature and subsequent her signature, I put my signature as a witness in the Will”. However, his cross-examination on 5.2.2005, the public had assembled in the house of the testatrix on at 10.00/11.00 a.m. and that the Will of the testatrix was read out by the propounder. 20. In a similarly worded paragraph 4 of the evidence-on-affidavit of PW-3, he had also stated “That Sarumai Kakoti produced a written Will and reported that she got the Will written on the other day at Sivasagar Tarini Office and allowed us to read the same. After reading the Will in presence of the executants and other people, Sarumai Kakoti put her signature and subsequent her signature, I put my signature as a witness in the Will”. However, in his cross-examination, the PW-3 had deposed that the public had assembled at the house of the testatrix at 12.00 noon and that the Will was read out by one Akon Dutta. 21. The PW-2 and PW-3, both could not recollect the date when Will was executed. The Will itself has two dates, because in the Will, it is specifically written that the Will was signed on 17.4.1997 out of her wish, but below the signature, the date has been given as 18.4.1997. However, the writer of the Will was not examined. 21. The PW-2 and PW-3, both could not recollect the date when Will was executed. The Will itself has two dates, because in the Will, it is specifically written that the Will was signed on 17.4.1997 out of her wish, but below the signature, the date has been given as 18.4.1997. However, the writer of the Will was not examined. Moreover, it is seen that the testatrix had died on 27.4.1997, i.e., on 9th day of execution of the Will. 22. The specific statement by the PW-2 in his cross-examination is that the sisters of testatrix were looking after her and that the propounder was living at Guwahati. However, there is no evidence on record why the testatrix would declare the Will in public by inviting 10 persons and yet not do so in the presence of her sisters and others, who were admittedly looking after her in her last days even as per the statement of PW-2 and that too by depriving her said sisters of any part of such property. 23. The PW-3 had also specifically stated in his cross-examination on 5.2.2005 that during the last days of her life she (i.e., the testatrix) was suffering from old age ailments, however, in his re-cross-examination on 28.7.2005, the PW-3 gave a contradictory statement by denying that the testatrix was seriously ill 10/12 days before her death, yet, such statement does not dilute the previous evidence that the testatrix was suffering from old age ailments during her last days. 24. On a perusal of the Will (Ext. 1), the following circumstances have drawn the attention of this court, viz., (i) the Will is signed on the three pages of the Will on right hand top of the page; (ii) the date appearing below the said three signatures in the Will is of 18.4.1997; (iii) only two out of three signatures of the testatrix in pages 1 and 2 of the Will are exhibited as Ext. 1(1) and Ext. 1(2) and the third signature at p. 3 of the Will was not exhibited; (iii) the two signatures of the testatrix marked as Ext. 1(1) and Ext. 1(1) and Ext. 1(2) and the third signature at p. 3 of the Will was not exhibited; (iii) the two signatures of the testatrix marked as Ext. 1(1) and Ext. 1(2) are partly shaky and partly steady, the prefix before the name “Srimati” is in steady hand-writing and in an ink which visually appears to be different from ink used in writing the name of “Sarumai Kakoti” and that the name of the testatrix “Sarumai Kakoti” visually appears to be shaky. However, the third page of Will bearing the full signature of “Srimati Sarumai Kakoti” are in same ink and with shaky handwriting; (iv) the testator has not signed at the foot of the Will; (v) at the foot of the Will, the date of signing the Will is given as 17.4.1997; (vi) there is no writing in the Will to the effect that the testator had signed in the presence of the attesting witnesses and that the attesting witnesses had attested the Will in the presence of the testatrix. 25. In the statement of PW-3 given during his cross-examination, he has stated that the testatrix had died 6 days after people had gathered in her house, which does not tally with the date of execution of the Will. Later on, realizing his blunder, in course of re-examination, PW-3 had stated that the Will was executed on 18.4.1997. 26. It emerges from the evidence of the PW-1 is that without obtaining probate in respect of the Will of the testatrix, he got his name mutated in the revenue records in place of the testator by projecting as if he had received the said land as a gift. This, is another suspicious circumstances regarding execution of the Will because as per the evidence of PW-3 in his cross-examination, one Mandal (land revenue staff) was present when the Will was read out and executed. In the opinion of this court, if the appellant already got the land bequeathed to him as gift, there was no need for him to get the Will probated and conversely, if the land was already bequeathed to him by a valid gift, there was reason for the appellant to get the same land mutated in his name by baselessly projecting before land revenue officials that the land was gifted to him. Hence, the only conclusion that can be inferred is that the execution of the Will of the testatrix was not without existence of suspicious circumstances, otherwise there was no need for any deception on part of the appellant. 27. It is not the case projected by the appellant that he was not aware of the Will executed on 18.4.1997, yet the appellant had slept over his right and filed the probate case only on 8.5.2000, beyond the period of three years. This is another suspicious circumstances working against the appellant. 28. Thus, on examining the materials on record, this court finds that there is no infirmity in the finding recorded to the effect that (i) the Ext. 1 differs in date and place in oral evidence, and (ii) that Ext. 1 bears different signatures in different types of signatures of Sarumai Kakoty on different pages. In the considered opinion of this court, the above referred two findings, amongst others, as recorded by the learned trial court constitute sufficient materials to hold that suspicious circumstances exist as to the execution of the last Will and testament of late Sarumai Kakoti, for which this court is unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are good grounds of appeal and accordingly, the point of determination is answered in the affirmative and against the appellant by holding that there is no infirmity with the judgment and order dated 5.6.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar in Misc. (Probate) Case No. 63/2000. 29. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 5.6.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar in Misc. (Probate) Case No. 63/2000 is hereby affirmed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.