JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. Judgment dated 18th May, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in O.S. No. 8 of 2014, whereby direction was given to grant probate in respect of the Will dated 4.12.1999 executed by one Basant Kumar Das, has been called in question in the present appeal.

2. One Dilip Kumar Das (in short, Dilip) filed one application under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, Act of 1925) on 01.02.2011 before the Court of District Delegate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas which was registered as Act 39 case no. 42 of 2011, contending inter alia that Basanta Kumar Das, since deceased (hereinafter referred to as the testator) breathed his last on 15.2.1971 at his permanent place of abode and prior to his death, on 4.12.1999 he made and published his last Will and testament in which he appointed Dilip, who happens to be his nephew (elder brother’s son), as sole executor. It was claimed therein that the Will was duly executed and attested in presence of the witnesses and the same was registered on 28.1.2000.

3. Three next kin of the testator, who were arrayed as defendant nos.1 to 3, resisted the grant of probate by filing common written statement rendering the case as contentious cause. However, ultimately, case was registered as O.S. No. 08 of 2014 and was transferred to the learned Court below for disposal.

4. Defence taken in the written statement is that the Will was manufactured and signature of testator was forged in connivance with the witnesses and Dilip is practically an abandoned child but in the body of the Will, Dilip was described as son of Mohan Lal Das (in short, Mohan). In the Will executed by the testator’s father, Kartick Chandra Das on 29.8.1956, it was recited that Mohan Lal Das died leaving behind his widow and two minor sons. From the record of Corporation concerned, certificate of birth of one Dilip Kumar Das was available wherefrom it was reflected that date of birth of Dilip, who was described as son of Mohan was recorded as 24.12.1952 but simultaneously, record of Corporation shows that Mohan died on 25.08.1949. It was alleged that insertion of such concocted story in the body of the Will itself speaks that Will was manufactured long after the death of testator and the same was registered by way of impersonation.

5. Records reveal that upon pleadings of the respective parties, learned Court below framed as many as six issues. Dilip adduced oral testimonies of two witnesses including himself and of one Ram Babu Chowdhury, who were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and Dilip tendered two documents, his certificate of birth and the Will, marked as Ext.-1 and Ext.-2 respectively whereas the caveators adduced oral accounts of one Ramesh Lal Das and they tendered four documents namely, certificate of death of Mohan, Certificate of birth of Dilip, registered deed of partition vide. No. 333 dated 12.2.88 and certificate of birth of Jiban Lal Das which were marked as Ext.A to D respectively.

6. Upon contested hearing, the learned Court below held the Will as genuine document. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants/appellants (in short, the appellants) preferred this appeal alleging inter alia that the learned Court below did not consider that Dilip made wrong assertion claiming himself to be the nephew of testator and son of Mohan Lal Das but conjoint reading of certificate of death of Mohan and certificate of birth of Dilip reveals that Mohan passed away on 25.8.1949 whereas Dilip was born on 24.12.1952 and such anomaly has not been removed and hence, Dilip failed to remove the suspicion surrounding the Will and the learned Court below did not consider that Jiban, who was one of the attesting witnesses, was minor on the date of execution of alleged Will and hence, Will was not attested as per the provision of Section 63(c) of Act of 1925.

7. Appellants have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the