The validity of a will requires proof of execution while the testator is of sound mind, and suspicious circumstances necessitate thorough scrutiny.

JUDGMENT :

SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The instant appeal arises out of the Judgement and Decree passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 2nd Court Malda in OC Suit No. 3/2006 (Probate case), dated the 11th day of June 2010, wherein the said Ld. Judge has been pleased to dismiss the suit on contest against Ranjurani Singha and Chabi Singha without cost and dismiss ex-parte against Manjurani Singha and Smt. Chandana Singha without cost. The Ld. Judge has been pleased to come to the conclusion that the petitioners have not been able to prove that the testatrix had independent advice and was physically fit mentally alert at the time of execution of the ‘Will’. The Ld. Judge has come to the finding that the petitioners have not been able to discharge the burden entrusted on them.

2. The appellants herein namely Radha Raman Singha and Smt. Prakriti Singha, who are the son and daughter-in-law respectively of the testatrix were the petitioners in the suit while the respondents herein namely Manju Rani Singha, Ranju Rani Singha, Chabi Singha and Chandana Singha who were the daughters of the testatrix were the opposite parties in the suit.

3. Ranju Rani Singha and Chabi Singha being the sisters of the applicant No.1 and sister-in-law of the applicant No.2 raised objection and opposed the prayer for grant of probate in respect of the said ‘Will’ are the respondents in the instant appeal.

4. Through the said application praying for probate it has been stated that the ‘Will’ in question was executed by the testatrix namely Annapurna Devi, who was the mother of the contesting parties, in presence of the witnesses after it being prepared as per her instruction.

5. The fact of the instant lis is that the appellants/petitioners namely Radha Raman Singha and Prakriti Singha prayed for grant of probate in respect of a ‘Will’ said to have been executed on 25.06.1997 by Annapurna Singha after it being prepared as per her direction and in her presence. After the same being prepared the said ‘Will’ in question has been said to be executed by Annapurna Singha the executrix in presence of the attesting witnesses.

Among the sisters, two of them that is the opposite party No. 2 namely Ranju Rani Singha and the opposite No. 3 namely Chabi Singha contested the suit by filing written statement, while the opposite party No. 1 namely Manju Rani Singha has admitted the averments made in the petition.

On being contentious the Misc. Case has been termed as Other Suit. The said suit has been dismissed by the Ld. Trial Judge by coming to the conclusion that the ‘Will’ in question has not been proved by the petitioner to have been executed on independent advice and the testatrix was neither physically fit nor mentally alert at the time of execution of the ‘Will’.

6. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/petitioners during his extensive submission has stated as follows:

i) The ‘Will’ in question has been prepared as per the direction and under the instruction of the testatrix namely Annapurna Singha and it was scribed by one Narendra Nath Singha who was a deed writer.

ii) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that after the said ‘Will’ being prepared it was executed by the testatrix without being influenced by anyone and in presence of the attesting witnesses.

iii) The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the execution of the ‘Will’ by the testatrix took place after the same being read over to her by the deed writer and after being satisfied with the content of t