JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The defendant has filed an application being GA No. 11 of 2023 praying for a direction upon the Manager, State Bank of India, Southern Avenue Branch for production of the documents lying in the bank locker of the deceased Krishna Mazumder so that the said document can be sent to the expert as admitted signatures of the deceased for comparison of the signatures of the deceased appearing in the alleged last Will and Testament of the Testator dated 8th March, 2016. 2. The defendant had filed another application being GA No. 12 of 2023 praying for appointment of handwriting expert to examine the disputed signature of Krishna Mazumdar appearing in the alleged Will with the admitted signature of the deceased. The plaintiff has initially filed an application being PLA No. 310 of 2016 for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar dated 8th March, 2016. On receipt of caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat, the PLA No. 310 of 2016 is converted to Testamentary Suit No. 23 of 2017. 3. The plaintiff had examined two witnesses to prove the Will i.e. the attesting witnesses of the Will. The defendant in the affidavit in support of the caveat has taken the defence that the alleged Will dated 8th March, 2016 is entirely fake, frivolous, concocted and manufactured. The defendant has further stated that the signature appearing in the alleged Will is not the actual signature of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar. 4. The defendant says that an expert is to be appointed to obtain a report as to whether the signature appearing in the alleged Will is of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar or not. The defendant says that the genuine signature of the Testatrix is available in the original Deed of Conveyance which is an admitted document and the said deeds are lying in the locker of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar at State Bank of India, Southern Avenue Branch, Kolkata and the same is to be placed before the expert for comparing the admitted signature and the signature appearing in the alleged Will. 5. 5. Learned Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment reported in (2019) 11 SCC 415 (Rama Avatar Soni vs. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das & Ors.) and submitted that scientific investigation of the document in question facilitates the ascertaining of truth, an expert is required to be appointed. 6. Per contra, Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has proved the Will by examining two witnesses, who are the attesting witnesses of the Will and both the witnesses have categorically stated that the said Will was executed by the Testatrix in their presence on 8th March, 2016 by appointing the plaintiff as Executor. The plaintiff says that the plaintiff has proved the Will in terms of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 7. The plaintiff says that the defendant has not made any cross-examination of the attesting witnesses of the plaintiff by denying the signature of the Testatrix in the Will. The plaintiff says that in the application, the defendant had also not made out any ground as to why an expert is to be appointed. 8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a judgment reported in (1992) 2 SCC 507 (Guro (Smt) vs. Atma Singh & Ors.) and submitted that it is well settled that the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 9. The defendant relied upon the judgment reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Mad 368 (R. Muniswamy & 6 Ors. vs. P. Pandiarajan & 3 Ors.) and submitted that the comparison can be made either by a witness acquainted by hand writing or by an expert witness skilled in deciphering handwriting, or without the intervention of any witnesses at all, by jury themselves, or in the event there being no jury, by the Court. He submits that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined to prove or disprove disputed writings. He submits that the Court is competent to compare the disputed writing with the writing admitted. 10. He submits that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined to prove or disprove disputed writings. He submits that the Court is competent to compare the disputed writing with the writing admitted. 10. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1594 (Ajay Harpal Singh vs. Deepti Ajay Singh) and submitted that to prove the Will, the propounder is required to show by satisfactory evidence, inter alia, that the Testator at the relevant time has understood the nature and effect of disposition and put his signature to the document of his own free Will. He submits that in the present case, the plaintiff has examined two attesting witnesses of the Will and the witnesses stated that the Testatrix had executed her last Will in their presence. 11. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the applications, documents and the judgments relied upon by the parties. 12. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses, namely, Bimal Krishna Jana and Ms. Mala Balakrishnan. Both are the attesting witnesses of the Will, in the examination-in-chief, both the witnesses have stated that the Testatrix has executed the Will in their presence and both have identified the signature of the Testatrix. During the cross-examination, the Counsel for the defendant has taken the defence that though actual name of the Testatrix is Krishna Mazumder but in the alleged Will, the name of the Testatrix is mentioned as Krishna Mazumdar and in the alleged signature of the Testatrix also it is mentioned that Krishna Mazumdar instead of Krishna Mazumder. In the cross-examination of the witness no. 2 of the plaintiff at question No. 101, a specific suggestion was given to the said witness by the Counsel for the defendant that the signatures appearing at various pages of the Will being Exhibit-A are not of the Testatrix Krishna Mazumdar. In affidavit in support of caveat also, the defendant has categorically made out a case that the alleged Will dated 8th March, 2016, is entirely fake, frivolous, concocted and manufactured. It is also stated that the alleged Will does not contained the actual signature of Krishna Mazumder. 13. In affidavit in support of caveat also, the defendant has categorically made out a case that the alleged Will dated 8th March, 2016, is entirely fake, frivolous, concocted and manufactured. It is also stated that the alleged Will does not contained the actual signature of Krishna Mazumder. 13. The entire case of the defendant either in the affidavit-in-support of the caveat or from the trend of cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness, it reveals that it is the specific case of the defendant that the alleged Will is a forged document and the signatures appearing in the Will is not of the Testatrix. 14. The judgments relied by the plaintiff are in connection with the settled position of law that the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Will could be accepted as genuine. As per the submissions made by the Counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff has proved the Will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by examining the two attesting witnesses of the Will. The case of Ram Avatar Soni (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the genuineness of the Will in question needs to be decided that is whether the signature in the Will is allegedly executed by the Executor could be ascertained only by sending the document to the handwriting expert. 15. In the present case, it is the specific case of the defendant that the signatures appearing in the Will is not of the Testatrix, namely, Krishna Mazumder and a specific defence has been set out in the affidavit in support of caveat as well as in the cross-examination of P.W.2 by giving specific suggestion of the witness that the signatures appearing in the Will is not that of the Testatrix. 16. As per the submission made by the Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has proved the Will by examining the two attesting witnesses in terms of the provision of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 but the said fact cannot be decided in the present application as this application is only with respect of appointment of an expert to ascertain the genuineness of the signatures of the Testatrix appearing in the Will. 17. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it is the specific case of the defendant that the signatures appearing in the alleged Will dated 8th March, 2016 are not of the Testatrix Krishna Mazumder and as such the same could be ascertain only by sending the documents to the handwriting expert for obtaining report with regard to genuinety of the signature of the testatrix. The Administrator pendente lite is directed to collect the original Deed with respect to Flat No. 6A, 5th Floor, 64, Southern Avenue, Kolkata – 700 029 and Flat No. P-51, Golf Club Road, Kolkata – 700 033 from the locker of the deceased Krishna Mazumder at State Bank of India, Southern Avenue Branch and to submit the same to the Learned Registrar, Original Side of this Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Manger, State Bank of India, Southern Avenue Branch, Kolkata, is directed to allow the administrator pendente lite to open the locker of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar and take out the two original deeds from the said locker by keeping the Xerox copy of the same in the locker. The Registrar, Original Side is directed that after receipt of the two original deeds mentioned above from the administrator pendente lite, the original Will of the Testatrix dated 8th March, 2016 being Annexure-A of the case record of T.S. No. 23 of 2017 keeping the Xerox copy of the same in the case record be sent to the Director, Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory (CFSL), DJ-10/1, New Action Area – 1D, New Town, Kolkata – 700 160, in a seal cover by special messenger with forwarding letter within a week thereafter. 18. The Director, CFSL, Kolkata is directed to examine and compare the signatures of the Testatrix Krishna Mazumdar appearing in the original Deed of Conveyance with respect to Flat No. 6A, 5th Floor, 64, Southern Avenue, Kolkata – 700 029 and Flat No. P-51, Golf Club Road, Kolkata – 700 033 with the signatures appearing in the alleged Will of the Testatrix dated 8th March, 2016 and to submit report before this Court within four weeks thereafter. 19. GA No. 11 of 2023 and GA No. 12 of 2023 are disposed of.