JUDGMENT :

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 1st February, 1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Probate Case No.03 of 2014 dismissing the application for grant of probate of the Will made and published by Netai Chandra Das, in a contentious cause.

2. The application for grant of probate accompanied by an affidavit of assets was filed by one Sri Milan Das (in short, Milan) stating inter alia that one Netai Chandra Das (in short, Netai) was the owner of the said assets and prior to his death on 20th June, 2003, he voluntarily executed a deed of Will on 7th January, 2023 and the same was registered on the self-same date. Claiming the said Will to be his last Will and testament, Netai settled his right, title and interest in the assets in favour of his only son, namely, Sandip Das (in short, Sandip) and his nephew, namely, Milan. The said Will was executed by Netai in presence of two attesting witnesses, namely, Uttam Das and Tapan Samanta and registered on the same date. The said Will was drafted by Sujit Bag, Advocate, Howrah Court and the same was typed by one Ashish Chakraborty, Howrah Court. Milan was appointed as the executor of the said Will. In the said application it was also specifically averred that Netai put his Left Thumb Impression (in short, LTI) on every page of the Will voluntarily, without any influence from any corner and in presence of the attesting witnesses and such LTI was identified by Sandip. Netai's wife, namely, Latika Das (in short, Latika) predeceased him and Sandip was their sole heir.

3. The probate application was contested by Sandip by filing a caveat and an affidavit in support thereof. In the said affidavit Sandip stated inter alia that Milan had no relation with Netai and was not an heir of Netai. Taking the advantage of acute mental and physical illness of Netai and the simplicity of Sandip, Milan prepared a Will by practicing fraud and misrepresentation.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Court below framed the following issues:

i. Is the present suit maintainable in its present form and prayer?

ii. Has the Court jurisdiction to try the instant suit?

iii. Whether the Will dated 07.01.2013 is genuine?

iv. Whether the Will dated 07.01.2013 was obtained by fraud, coercion and importunity?

v. Whether the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the Will?

vi. Whether the Will was executed in accordance with Law?

vii. Is the plaintiff entitled to get relief as prayed for?

viii. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. The propounder deposed as PW1, the attesting witnesses, namely, Uttam Das and Tapan Samanta deposed as PW2 and PW3 respectively. One Partha Debnath was also examined as PW4. The propounder placed reliance and exhibited his original election identity card, the certified copy of a deed of partition dated 23rd October, 1973, certified copy of another deed of partition dated 13th May, 1983, original death certificate of the testator, the original death certificate of Latika Das and the original Will as exhibit Nos.1 to 6 respectively. The left thumb impressions of the testator were marked as exhibit 6/1 series. Signatures were marked as exhibit 6/2, exhibit 6/3 and exhibit 6/4. Original Aadhar Card of PW4 was exhibited as exhibit 7.

6. The respondent and one Deepika Ray deposed as DW1 and DW2 respectively and the respondent exhibited medical report of the testa