JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. Judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur in O.S. No. 01 of 2006, whereby direction for grant of probate in respect of the Will and testament dated 28.06.1996 executed by one Manmatha Nath Bag was given, is under challenge in the present appeal.

2. One Nilima Rani Kotal (in short, Nilima) preferred an application under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, Act of 1925) before the learned District Delegate, Medinipur and the aforesaid application (hereinafter referred to as the said application) was registered as Probate Case no. 134 of 1997.

3. In the application, it was, inter alia, contended that her father, Manmatha Nath Bag, who died on 10.6.1997 at his permanent place of abode, executed his last Will and testament on 28.6.1996 and the Will was duly registered on the same day i.e. on 28.6.1996. Testator died leaving behind his widow, Puspa Rani Bag, one son, Ashoke Kr. Bag, the appellant herein and two daughters namely, Nilima and Sima Rani Das. Nilima alleged that at the relevant time of execution of the Will, testator was in sound and disposing state of mind and Nilima was appointed executor in the Will and hence, Will was fit to be probated.

4. Ashoke Kumar Bag (in short, Ashoke) and Sima resisted the application for grant of probate by filing written objection and in consequence, the case became contentious and was referred to the court of learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur and ultimately, the case was transferred to the learned Court below and was renumbered as O.S. No. 01 of 2006.

5. Ashoke and Sima impeached the Will, inter alia, alleging that the Will was false, fabricated, manufactured and forged and testator had never executed and registered any Will in respect of the suit property and Nilima had manufactured the Will by way of false personification and attesting witness and identifier were the own men of Nilima and testator was not physical fit and mentally sound at the time of execution and registration of the Will.

6. Upon pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Court below framed as many as six issues and record reveals that in corroboration of the fact projected in the application, Nilima adduced oral testimonies of six witnesses including herself, two attesting witnesses, Scribe, one deed writer and one official from the office of the District Sub-Registrar concerned. On the other hand, on behalf of the opposite parties, Ashoke adduced oral accounts of two witnesses including himself.

7. Nilima tendered two documents, Will and certificate of death of the testator which were marked as Ext.-1 and Ext.-2 respectively. Ashoke and Sima did not produce any documentary evidence.

8. By passing the judgment impugned, the learned Court below held the Will to be a genuine document. Aggrieved thereby, the Ashoke has preferred this present appeal, inter alia, contending that learned Court below misconstrued the evidence brought on record and it has not been taken into account that propounder received benefit under the Will and she took active part in preparation of the Will and propounder adduced false evidence through her yes-men and Will was obtained by practicing fraud and false personification and testator was not in sound and disposing state of mind at the relevant time of execution of the Will.

9. Mr. Debasish Roy, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that Nilima used to stay with the testator and Nilima tutored the testator and she exercised her undue influence to get the Will executed and Nilima who received benefit under the Will was present at the time of execution of the Will and drawing our attention of the evidence of PW-4, he contends that PW-4, one of attesting witnesses did not support the propounder.

10. He further contends that there was an enmity in between Nilima and Ashoke and Nilima has deposed that she had filed one criminal case against Ashoke