The propounder of a Will must prove valid execution by confirming compliance with legal requirements, and any allegations of forgery or mental incapacity must be substantiated by the contesting party.

Judgment :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff, namely, Tapati Sengupta, W/o Late Ajit Kumar Sengupta has initially filed an application being P.L.A. No. 309 of 2012 praying for grant of probate of the Last Will and Testament of the deceased Ajit Kumar Sengupta dated 29th February, 2008. On receipt of citation, Snehajit Sengupta being the son of the testator had filed caveat and affidavit-in-support of the caveat. On receipt of caveat, the probate application being P.L.A. No. 309 of 2012 is converted to Testamentary Suit No. 4 of 2022. During the pendency of the suit, Snehajit Sengupta passed away. Upon his death, his wife Smt. Manashi Sengupta Bhadra was substituted as defendant.

2. As per the case of the plaintiff, Ajit Kumar Sengupta executed his last Will and Testament on 29th February, 2008 by appointing his wife Tapati Sengupta and his daughter Amgana Sengupta as joint executrixes of his last Will. The testator died on 22nd September, 2011 at Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, Fairfield, United States of America leaving behind his wife, Smt. Tapati Sengupta, his son Snehajit Sengupta and his daughter Amgana Sengupta. The daughter has affirmed an affidavit by giving her consent for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased in favour of her mother. The son has not given consent but has filed caveat and affidavit in support of caveat objecting for grant of probate.

3. As per the case of the original defendant, he was the only son of the testator of his first wife. The testator was the Judge of this Court as well as the Allahabad High Court. The mother of the original defendant died intestate at the University College Hospital, London, United Kingdom on the date of his birth. After the death of his mother, his father remarried to the plaintiff herein and in their wedlock, his sister Amgana was born. The death of the testator was never communicated to the defendant either by the plaintiff or her daughter.

4. Mr. Kallol Guha Thakurta, Learned Advocate representing the defendant submits that the defendant came to know about the death of his father through the advertisement/ obituary published in the News Paper, namely, Ananda Bazar Patrika, Siliguri Edition, dated 14th October, 2011, due to which the defendant could not perform the last ritual rites and customs of his father.

5. Mr. Thakurta submits that the alleged Will is vague, untrue, false, forged and fabricated from its very first line to its very last line. The signatures, as well as the initials, are also false and forged. The alleged Will in question also does not include the details of other various properties owned by the deceased. He submits that the manner of language in which the so called Will has been drawn up, cannot be that of the eminent retired High Court Judge.

6. Mr. Thakurta submits that the purported Will is motivated, malafide, manufactured, purported and concocted one. He submits that the defendant is a Tea-Planter by profession and Tea Garden situated at Jalpaiguri due to which he has no other option but to stay-away from Calcutta. He submits that the testator was an aged person, suffering from various ailments and senility and was not in a sound mind and body and was fully dependent upon his wife. Due to his prolonged absence form Calcutta, the plaintiff got an opportunity to contrive against the defendant and fulfill their sweet desir