JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, North 24 Parganas, Barasat in O.S. No. 32 of 2006, whereby direction was given to grant probate in respect of the last Will and testament executed by the testator on 12.05.1986, has been called in question in the present appeal.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are follows:

(i) One Anjan Ghosh (in short, Anjan) filed an application under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, Act of 1925) before the District Delegate, Barasat, which was registered as case no. 314 of 2004, inter alia, contending that Arabinda Ghosh, who died on 20.05.2002, having his permanent place of abode at Napara Kalibari Road, Barasat, North 24 Parganas executed his last Will and testament on 12.05.1986.

(ii) It was claimed that in the Will, which was a hologragh Will, Anjan Ghosh was appointed as the sole executor and testator died leaving behind two sons including the propounder and one Ranjan Ghosh and two daughters namely, Manjula Ghosh and Ramala Das.

(iii) It was alleged therein that the Will was duly executed and attested and at the time of execution of the Will, testator was of sound and disposing state of mind and hence, the Will was fit to be probated.

(iv) On receipt of citation, daughters of the testator (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) impeached the Will by filing joint written objection and the proceeding became contentious in consequence and the same was referred to the Court of learned District Judge wherein it was renumbered as O.C. Case No. 32 of 2006.

(v) Crux of the defence taken in the written objection is that Will was collusive, fraudulent and manufactured and testator had never executed such Will and the signatures appearing on the alleged Will were not of the testators and attesting witnesses were the yes-men of the propounder and at the time of execution of the alleged Will, testator was old and hence, he was not physically fit and mentally alert and the testator did not execute the Will voluntarily and amounts lying in the name of their mother in the bank and post office, MIS have been included in the schedule of the Will and lastly, it was claimed that propounder is not entitled to get probate in respect of the alleged Will.

(vi) Record reveals that in corroboration of the facts depicted in the application for grant of probate, propounder adduced oral testimonies of two witnesses including one attesting witness, namely, Kanai Kar and himself who were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and on the other hand, to resist the grant of probate, both the daughters of the testator deposed and were examined as DW-1 and DW-2.

(vii) PW-1 proved the Will, marked as Ext.-1 whereas the respondents tendered one book, cover page of which was marked as Ext.-A and testator’s signature appearing thereon was marked as Ext.-A/1 on admission.

(viii) After closure of the evidence and after the case was fixed for argument, appellants had filed an application for comparison of the signatures appearing on the cover page of that book with the signatures of the testator appearing on the Will but the learned Court below by passing an order dated 10.05.2016 decided to hear the application at the time of argument of the case. Order dated 10.05.2016 has not been assailed in any higher f