MUKERJI, J.

(1.) In an application for grant of letters of administration, which was heard as a contentious cause, a judgment and decree was passed on 30th April, 2009 granting letters of administration to the respondents. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The dispute is about an alleged Will of one Jiban Krishna Das, dated 10th July, 1980. It is holographic, written and signed in Bengali. Jiban Krishna Das lived for some eighteen years after the alleged Will and died in 1998. His wife predeceased him on 19th November, 1993. So did one of his sons on 15th April, 1996.

(3.) The subject matter of this alleged Will is a three-storied residential house in Dumdum. Jiban Krishna had all his three living sons at the time of execution of this alleged Will. He bequeathed one floor to each of his sons for life and upon their deaths, to his grandsons, by his sons, absolutely. Jiban Krishna also had two daughters who got nothing under this alleged Will.

(4.) As we have noted, one of his sons died on 15th April, 1996. This son had one daughter and one son. His other two sons being Sanat and Nemai had only daughters.

(5.) They have challenged this alleged Will on many grounds. They support the grounds of challenge by the reasoning that the alleged testator, Jiban Krishna, who lived with one of these two sons could not have made such a Will, knowing that these two sons had only daughters and that upon their demise their daughters would be deprived and the son of the predeceased son would enjoy the whole property. That, could not be the intention of their father, the testator.

(6.) One interesting fact is that, the predeceased son also had a daughter, who has not come up to challenge the Will.

(7.) In this alleged Will the alleged testators wife, Chabi was named the executrix. His eldest son, Ashim, who subsequently predeceased him, was the named executor.

(8.) One attesting witness of the alleged Will was one Dr. Debaprosad Sarkhel, described as a family physician.

(9.) Two substantial grounds of challenge have been made to the Will. (1) It is a fabricated document that is the Will was not executed by the deceased and (2) The alleged attesting witness had not seen the alleged testator execute the Will and so an essential requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, relating to the attestation of a valid Will had not been fulfilled.

(10.) It is contended by the appellants that the deceased Jiban Krishna was an engineer and he always signed in English and that the execution and signature of the Will in Bengali gives rise to considerable suspicion. The signature is not his. Therefore, the Will is a fabricated document. Secondly, the evidence led by Dr. Sarkhel did not show that he had seen the alleged testator execute the Will. Hence there was a fundamental technical flaw in the Will. As a consequence, the Will should fail.

(11.) He has also cited B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and Ors, AIR 2007 SC 311 and Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibemma Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh and Ors., (2009)4 SCC 780 : (2009)3 WBLR (SC) 373.

(12.) We have not seriously invited the respondent to counter the submissions because in our opinion the appellants have completely failed even to make out an arguable cause. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.

(13.) It is nobodys case that the alleged testator did not know Bengali. The only case is that he, to the knowledge of the appellants did not sign in Bengali. If the genuineness of a Will made and signed in Bengali is to be assailed, more substantive evidence was required to be adduced to show that the signature was not that of the alleged testator. No specimen handwriting of the testator had been produced to show that the signature in the Will was at variance with it. Neither any expert has been called to disprove the signature in the Will. No other evidence is also led to show that the Will is a fabricated document, apart from the evidence that the alleged testator, normally,