Judgment :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by two daughters of the testatrix challenging the grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of the said testatrix, namely Late Panchabala Pal, whereby she bequeathed her property to one of her daughters. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the execution of the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances.

2. The Will was executed on June 29, 1995 and registered on September 15, 1995. The testatrix died on January 14, 2001 and the probate application was filed on May 16, 2001.

3. The proceeding became contentious on the appellants filing their objection. Accordingly, the probate application was returned on September 1, 2002 for being re-presented.

4. Accordingly, a plaint was filed by the propounder on April 11, 2007 which culminated in the impugned decree granting probate.

5. It is argued by the appellants that there was a delay of approximately five years in re-presenting the plaint after the proceeding turned contentious, which gives rise to doubt as to the veracity of the Will. Moreover, the signature of the testatrix, as on the earlier pages of the Will, also finds place on the top right-hand corner of the last page of the Will. It is argued that unless the signature is put at the bottom of the Will where the narrative of the Will ends, it cannot be said that there was due compliance of Section 63(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates that the signature of the testator shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.

6. It is next argued that the son-in-law of the testatrix was made the Executor and was present at every stage of execution, whereas the beneficiary of the Will is his wife, one of the daughters of the testatrix. Such dominant role played by the son-in-law, whose wife is the sole beneficiary of the Will, itself can be treated to be a suspicious circumstance.

7. Moreover, it is found from the evidence of the scribe of the Will that the contents of the Will were “dictated” by the testatrix. However, the Will contains details of several pending cases and also includes some English phrases. The testatrix, being an 80-year-old rural widow lady having no knowledge of English, could not have 'dictated' the Will. Also, P.W.4 (the scribe) stated in his evidence that the testatrix herself read the Will. However, it is an admitted position that she could not read or write but could barely scribble in Bengali.

8. Again, instead of the local sub-registration office near the house of the testatrix, the Will was registered in Burdwan Sadar Town. P.W.1, the Executor/propounder admitted in his evidence that he does not know the reason therefor. Thus, such conduct of the testatrix remains unexplained.

9. The testatrix signed on the Will but put her LTI (Left Thumb Impression) during registration, which is also a suspicious circumstance, it is argued.

10. If the Will was executed, learned counsel for the appellants argues, there was no reason why a subsequent giftdeed was executed in respect of the self-same property in favour of the sons of the beneficiary.

11. Previously on July 22, 1977, a gift deed was executed in favour of the appellants, challenging which a suit was filed and decreed. An appeal against the same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court. Against the remand order, a First Miscellaneous Appeal is now pending in this Court. In view of the existence of such gift deed, a subsequent Will is automatically suspect and does not confer title.

12. In the disputed Will, it is contended, there is no endorsement as to the contents of the same having been read over and explained to the testatrix. Moreover, the 80-year-old rural widow lady allegedly travelled by bus to Burdwan Town and walked to the registration office, which is highly improbable.

13. Also, the Will was registered three months after the execution of the same. The Will was admittedly di