Gurusharan Sharma, J.-Pratap Chandra Mandai died on 29.7.1980 at Maithan, leaving behind two sons, Sunil Kumar Mandai and Anil Kumar Mandai and a grand daughter Lehali Mandalain, daughter of his pre-deceased son, Nathu Nath MandaI. Baul Chandra Mandai, son of Jogindra Mandai of village Sanga Mahul, district Dhanbad, who was brother-in-law of Sunil Kumar Mandai filed Probate Case No. 3 of 1983, in the capacity of executor of the will dated 10.3.1969 said to be executed by Pratap Chandra Mandai in favour of his five grand sons, Golak Mandai, Manth Mandai, Baltu Mandai, all sons of Anil Kumar Mandai, and Bishwanath Mandai and Bikas Mandai, sons of Sunil Kumar Mandal.

2. Lehali Mandalain filed objection to the grant of probate of the said Will. According to her the testator was an illiterate person and as such the Will in question was got executed by him fraudulently on misrepresentation by wives of his two sons. Contents of Will were not explained to him and during his life time testator had destroyed original Will and sold a portion of Plot No. 1715 by sale deed dated 9.11.1976 to one Chaitanya Das. In fact, his two sons, in order to deprive objector of her legal share got the Will executed by Pratap Chandra Mandal.

3. It was a registered Will and its execution by Pratap Chandra Mandai was not denied by the Objector.

4. The original Will was not produced on the ground that some of its pages were not available and so certified copy thereof was brought on record and marked Exhibit 1.

5. From, perusal of certified copy of Will (Exhibit 1) it reveals that it was executed on 10.3.1969 and was presented for admission of execution before the Registrar on the same day. Two persons, namely, Anil Chandra Mandai and Rampada Mandai, who were examined in Probate Case as P.Ws. 2 and 3 had• put their signatures as witnesses on the Will on 10.3.1969.

6. Trial court on the basis of evidence adduced by objector on the question of false representation by mothers of the beneficiaries and execution by the testator by practising fraud on him, recorded finding that the Will (Exhibit 1) was not executed by Pratap Chandra Mandai under any influence or duress and he had done it voluntarily. There was no reliable evidence to support objector's contention that with a view to deprive of her rightful interest in the properties left by her grandfather, Pratap Chandra Mandai, wives of Anil Kumar Mandai and Sunil Kumar Mandai influenced the testator with false representation and got the Will executed fraudulently. She also failed to establish that contents of Will was not explained to the testator and later on he torned and burnt the original thereof.

7. Appellant's case was that original Will was kept in the custody of Sri Devidas Neogi, the deed writer, but as some of its pages were misplaced and only parts of original Will could be traced out, certified copy of the said Will was filed in the proceeding and was marked Exhibit 1.

8. The executor of the Will examined himself as P.W. 1. Certainly he was not present at the time of execution of the Will and, therefore, his evidence on this aspect of the matter was rightly not considered.

9. Anil Kumar Mandai was one of the sons of testator and was also an attesting witness on the Will. He was examined as P.W. 2. He supported the fact that his father late Pratap Chandra Mandai had executed a Will in his presence, which was duly attested.

10. Other attesting witness, Rampada Mandai, P.W. 3 also supported and corroborated statement of P.W. 2 on the point of execution and attestation of the Will. He claimed himself to be present at the time of execution of Will. However, both P.Ws. 2 and 3 instead of 10.3.1969 stated that Will was executed and registered on 30.3.1969:

11. Trial court held that there was a vital discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. According to both of them Will was executed and registered on 30.3.1969, whereas Exhibit 1 shows that it was executed and registered on 10.3.1969. So P.Ws. 2 and