Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

This probate appeal is at the instance of one of the caveators and is directed against judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Original Suit No.5 of 1985 thereby granting probate of the last Will and Testament of one Tara Sankar Nandan executed on 6th February, 1978 and subsequently registered on 10th February, 1978, before the Registrar, Calcutta.

The respondent no.1 before us filed the aforesaid proceedings for grant of probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by Tara Sankar Nandan on 6th February, 1978 and registered on 10th February, 1978 by which the respondent no.1 was appointed the sole executor. By the said Will, the testator gave his undivided share in the Premises No.2, Kansharipara Lane, in favour of the appellant, his only son, and his entire right, title and interest in the Premises No.49, Rupnarayan Nandan Lane, was bequeathed in favour of the respondent no.1, the executor.

There is no dispute that the testator died on September 6, 1980 at the Premises No.49, Rupnarayan Nandan Lane, leaving his widow, one son, the appellant before us, and a married daughter. In the Will, the testator lamented that he had no connection with his wife, the son and the daughter for several years in the past and that they had deserted him. It is further mentioned in the said Will that the testator had met the executor in Hardwar during his visit in 1972 and thereafter, he had been residing with the executor as he was looked after and respected as if he was the father of the executor.

The probate proceedings were contested by the widow, the son and the daughter of the testator and during the pendency of the proceeding, the widow died.

In the written statement filed by the natural heirs of the testator, they specifically asserted that the Will was a forged one and that it did not contain the signature of the testator. It was further alleged that the testator was under the clutches of the executor for the last few years before his death. It, however, was admitted that the testator had no good relation with his wife and children and that he was staying separately with the executor of the Will for the last eight years before his death. Therefore, a case of undue influence was also faintly made out in the written statement. In addition to the above defences, loss of mental equilibrium of the testator was also taken.

At the time of hearing of the proceedings, the executor himself, one of the attesting witnesses and the solicitor, who drafted the Will, gave evidence, while the appellant and one of the brothers of the testator deposed in opposing the grant of probate.

As pointed out earlier, the learned Trial Judge, on consideration of the materials on record, concluded that due execution and attestation of the Will was proved and that there was no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will justifying rejection of the application for grant of probate.

Being dissatisfied, the son of the Executor has come up with the present first appeal. Mr Banerjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, by drawing our attention to the evidence given by the three witnesses for the propounder, contended before us that there are inconsistencies in their evidence and there is a reasonable doubt as to the alleged place of execution of the Will. It is further submitted that the claim of the executor as to how he got hold of the Registered Will is conflicting with the evidence given by the Solicitor in whose office the Will was allegedly executed. He further contended that Ext.-4 itself shows that the Registered Will came in the custody of the executor in the year 1978 whereas the Solicitor who drafted the Will expressly stated that the receipt of the Registration was handed over to the executor after the death of the testator in the year 1980. After taking into consideration all those evidences, Mr Banerjee