1. Heard Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R.C. Paul, the learned counsel for the sole respondent. It is submitted that originally there were two respondents but the respondent No. 1 had died and her name was striked out by the order dated 22.8.2017 passed by this court. Therefore, only respondent No. 2, who was then a minor, but by now has attained majority is the only contesting respondent in this appeal.

2. By this appeal under section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 22/2001, which was an application under section 221 of the Succession Act for granting probate of Will stated to have been executed by her son, Chira Ranjan Mukherjee, who expired on 22.9.1999.

3. In the application for grant of probate, it was projected that before the death of her son, the deceased was working as an employee of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. As his relationship with his wife (Smt. Pumima Mukherjee) was in trouble, she left her son and used to reside at her parents' house and, therefore, her deceased son, by making a last testament/Will on 14.7.1999 bequeathed all his property to the appellant herein. Accordingly, the said application was filed claiming aggregate money of GIS, CPF, financial assistance, etc., lying with the employer amounting to Rs. 1,97,678. The application was duly verified by the appellant and it was accompanied with a declaration of the witness, who was the attesting witness to the will executed by the deceased. The case was numbered as Misc.(Probate) No. 83/2001 and as the original respondent No. 1, namely, Anima Mukherjee had submitted objection, and the case was converted to Title Suit No. 22/2001. The appellant-plaintiff examined 4 witnesses and the defendant side examined 3 witnesses, who were duly cross-examined by other side.

4. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:

(1) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action?

(2) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(3) Whether will of the testator is a valid one or it is a collusive one?

(4) Whether testator was deprived of his conjugal life during life time?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief she claims?

5. The learned District Judge took up issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together and by discussing the evidence, doubted the execution of the Will. The learned trial court disbelieved the evidence of the appellant-plaintiff that Smt. Pumima Mukherjee was not the legally married wife of the deceased. It was held that the plaintiff had made an admission in the probate petition that Pumima Mukherjee was the wife of the appellant's deceased son. On considering the contents of family declaration (Ext. D) dated 17.12.1997 given to the deceased by the employer, it was held that Pumima Mukherjee was the wife of the deceased. It was further held that as per the evidence of the plaintiff, except what was mentioned in the Will, there was no other immovable property and, therefore, it was doubted that PW1 did not know that what property was bequeathed to her by her son. It was held that none of the witnesses stated about the date of death of the son of the plaintiff. While, PW2 stated that Will was prepared by him on 14.7.1999 but as per the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, it was their version that the date of execution of Will was 17.7.1999. The evidence of PW2 was also doubted because as per his evidence, he stated that he saw the testator for the first time when the Will was prepared and, therefore, the evidence of PW2 was also doubted by the learned trial court. Moreover, his version was also doubted because as per the contents of the Will (Ext. 1), it was signed by the deceased after it was read over by its writer but as per the evidence of PW4, he put the signature on the Will [Ext. 1(4)] after the executor met him at 11/11:30 a.m. Because as per the evidence of