JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sreerampur in probate Suit No. 15 of 2011.

2. The present appellants are the two daughters of the testator, namely, Bhanu Rani Ghosh and Kalyani Ghosh. Kalyani is the unmarried daughter and Bhanu is the widowed daughter at the time of execution of the alleged Will. They were residing with the testator at the relevant time under the Will. The wife of the testator Smt. Sarashi Dasi was given life interest in respect of all the properties left by the deceased and the widowed daughter was given the right of residence. She was allowed to stay in one room as long as she would remain alive. The Will is silent on Kalyani, the unmarried daughter.

3. Kalyani and Bhanu contested the probate proceeding. They have alleged that the Will was not executed and attested in accordance with law under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The propounder of the Will had failed to dispel/remove the reasonable suspicion, which surrounded the execution and attestation of the alleged Will. It was alleged that the testator was an alcoholic person and at the time of execution of the Will he was not in proper frame of mind.

4. The learned Trial Judge, however, rejected the said objections and granted probate in favour of the propounder of the Will. Hence this appeal.

5. Mr. Gautam Brahma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Will was not proved in accordance with law. The Will was alleged to have been executed on 25th February, 1969 and the application for grant of probate was filed by the executors, namely his two sons, on 27.5.1998. The testator died on 11th July, 1979. The appellants were unable to explain the delay in discovering the Will and the filing of application for grant of probate. It is submitted that the Will was brought into existence under suspicious circumstances in order to defeat the legal rights of his two daughters in the suit properties. Late Panchanan Ghosh always treated his wife and children equally and it is unbelievable that in the matter of dispossession of his assets he would deprive his daughters. It is submitted that the testator could barely sign in Bengali language or he could hardly read Bengali or English. The name of the father of the testator was Hari Charan Ghosh and he was always described by the testator in that name. Therefore, the mentioning of the name of the father of the testator as Hari Charan Ghosh in the Will also raised suspicion. Moreover, Panchanan had special affection for her younger daughter, Kalyani and he was very anxious about her future. The deprivation of Kalyani, under such facts and circumstances, is highly improbable. The said Will was prepared by their brothers without the knowledge and consent of the testator and obtained signature of their father on the Will without understanding of the contents of the Will. The testator was a habitual drunker and it is inconceivable that in a proper frame of mind he would have executed a document of this nature, which is patently unconscionable. The execution of the Will was highly suspicious and improbable as few of the attesting witnesses were known to the executor and it is unbelievable that the execution of the Will was not disclosed to the executor earlier. The signature also differs in the Will from his actual signature. The application for probate was filed after a lapse of considerable time after the death of the testator. The delay has not been explained. Moreover, the original Will was not produced and the probate application was filed on the basis of the certified copy of the alleged Will without offering any satisfactory explanation for not being able to produce the original Will.

6. It is submitted that the executors have relied upon the testimony of five witnesses. The Will is attempted to be proved by the two sons of the testator, who deposed as P.W.