The burden of proving the genuineness of a Will lies on the propounder, and where suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a Will, the propounder must remove such suspicions by clear and satisfactory evidence.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The plaintiff has applied for grant of probate of a document claimed to be the last Will and testament of Rama Sengupta, since deceased.

2. The testatrix had died on August 14, 2006. By her Will the testatrix has appointed the plaintiff as the executor.

3. The plaintiff does not come within the heirs succeeding to the estate of the testatrix on intestacy succession. The brother of the testatrix being the defendant herein succeeds on intestacy succession and is opposing the grant of the probate. The probate application was directed to be treated as a contentious clause. A testamentary suit number has been allotted pursuant to such direction.

4. Three issues have been framed for trial in the suit on May 13, 2013. The issues settled by such order are as follows:-

1. Is the Will dated 6th October, 2005 executed by Rama Sengupta since deceased?

2. Does the execution of the Will dated 6th October, 2005 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances as alleged in paragraphs 3 and 9 of the written statement?

3. Is the executor entitled to grant of probate of the Will and Testament dated 6th October, 2005?

5. The parties have adduced evidence through their respective witnesses. The plaintiff has examined three witnesses apart from himself. The defendant has examined one witness, that is, himself.

6. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has submitted that, the Will being Exhibit ‘A’ was duly registered with the Registrar of Assurances at Kolkata. According to him, the execution and the registration of the Will are admitted by the defendant. In support of such contention, he has referred to the answers given by the defendant to question nos. 231 and 232 in cross-examination. He has submitted that, the Will was executed on October 6, 2005. The deceased had died on August 14, 2006. The execution of the Will has been duly proved by the two attesting witnesses along with scribe of the Will. The two attesting witnesses were produced in evidence by the plaintiff. The scribe of the Will being an Advocate was also produced in evidence. The plaintiff as the executor has examined himself as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff.

7. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has submitted that, the objection of the defendant that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances and that the deceased did not have the requisite testamentary capacity to execute the Will are without any basis. In support of the mental capacity of the testatrix, learned Advocate for the plaintiff has relied upon Exhibit ‘G’ being the diary of the testatrix. He has pointed out to the date being October 6, 2005 on which date the Will was duly executed and the entry in respect thereof in Exhibit ‘G’. Referring thereto he has submitted that, the testatrix had written about the execution of the Will by her own handwriting. He has referred to the series of letters exchanged between the testatrix and the defendant particularly Exhibit ‘6’ where the testatrix had expressed her displeasure at the conduct of defendant. He has submitted that, the defendant had created trouble for the testatrix during her lifetime. The relationship between the two was soured. He has referred to Exhibits ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘K’ and ‘L’ being the other letters exchanged between the parties. He has also referred to Exhibit ‘H’ being a deed of conveyance dated July 11, 2005 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of an immovable property. He has submitted that, the Will was executed on October 6, 2005 prior to Exhibit ‘H’. Therefore, the testatrix did have the requisite testamentary capacity on October 6, 2005 when she was executing her Will. So far as suspicious circumstances are concerned, he has submitted that, the execution of the Will is not shrouded by any suspicious circumstances. The Will of testatrix has been registered with the Registrar of Assurances at Kolkata. She was of sound mind. She was living alone. Therefore, there is no ground for any suspicion with regard to