The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the propounder to establish the validity of the Will, including the requirements for execution, attestation, and the testator's sound disposing state of mind. The judgment also emphasizes the need to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and the burden on the objector to prove allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence.

JUDGMENT

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. - The present appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia in O.S. no. 11 of 2000 whereby the prayer for grant of probate was turned down.

2. Before we delve into the contour of controversies involved in the appeal, we may notice the facts of the case in brief, which are as follows :

a. One Kashinath Ghosh filed one application for grant of probate in respect of last Will and testament of Kshudiram Ghosh on 02.05.2000 before the District Delegate, Ranaghat, Nadia and the said application was registered as Misc. Case no. 111 of 1997 (Probate) but the proceeding became contentious since one Bhagirathi Mandal filed written objection with a view to impeach the Will and then the said case was ultimately transferred to the learned Court below and was registered as O.S. no. 11 of 2000;

b. In the application, it was recited that Kshudiram Ghosh (hereinafter referred to the testator) during his life time by executing one Will bequeathed his estate in favour of the petitioner, namely, Kashinath Ghosh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and the testator expired on 12.02.1996 at his permanent place of abode;

c. In the application, it was stated that the testator left behind him, four legal heirs namely, i) Radharani Ghosh, ii) Bhagirathi Mandal, iii) Ashalata Ghosh and iv) Sri Binod Bala but Binod Bala was not the kin of the testator and later on the name of Binod Bala was expunged and during pendency of the proceeding, Ashalata died and consequently, her name was also expunged.

3. Record reveals that requirements of Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1923) were duly complied with.

4. Bhagirathi Mandal filed written objection wherein it was specifically contended that the Will was forged to grab the property of the deceased and to deprive the natural heirs of testator from the estate of the testator. It was further contended that Radharani was first wife of the testator and Bhagirathi is the daughter of Radharani and testator whereas Ashalata happened to be the second wife of testator and the petitioner is the son of Ashalata and it was recited that the testator was on good terms with Radharani and Bhagirathi, who also had love and affection towards the testator and it was claimed that at his age of 75 years, testator went to Ichapur to live with his first wife where he became seriously ill and then after his sudden death, petitioner started propagating that the testator had bequeathed his estate to the petitioner by executing one Will but at that time testator had no physical and mental ability to make any Will and she claimed that testator died intestate and she inherited the proportionate share of properties left by the testator and the petitioner tried to dispossess her from the properties which she inherited and hence, she filed two suits vide. nos. T.S. 106 of 1996 and T.S. 38 of 2000 and on receipt of summons of first suit, petitioner had filed this application for grant of probate and lastly, prayer was made for dismissal of the application.

5. One Binod Bala also filed his written objection contending inter alia that the Will was forged and not fit to be probated and that Ashalata happened to be the maid servant of testator and the petitioner was her son and he used to live with his mother and that Radharani and Bhagirathi used to look after the testator and it was asserted therein that the testator had never executed the alleged Will.

6. Upon pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Court below framed as many as 7(seven) issues. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner adduced oral accounts of one Bijan Kumar Ghosh, of himself, of Monju Ghosh and also of one Sri Haradhan Nayak, who were examined as PW 1 to 4 respectively and petitioner produced the Will, marked as Ext.-1. On the other hand, the opposite parties adduced oral testimonies of Binod Bala and Bhagirathi Mandal, who were e