The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, is sufficient to discharge the onus.

U.B. Saha, J.

This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 23.09.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (Probate) 1 of 2009.

2. Heard Mr. Sekhar Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P.R. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts of the case, needed for disposal, in a short compass, are as following:

4. The deceased Arun Khasnabish died on 6.4.2005 leaving behind the appellant and the respondents herein as his legal heirs. Mother of the respondents Smt. Ama Khasnabish died leaving behind the respondent No. 1 and 2 at the age of 4/5 years and 2 years respectively. After the death of Ama Khasnabish, Arun Khasnabish during his life time married the appellant on 14.8.1981 according to Hindu customs and rites.

5. After the death of Arun Khasnabish, the respondents left the house of Arun Khasnabish leaving behind the appellant in the month of May, 2005 and since then the appellant has been leaving in the house of her husband and she used to pay the electrical bills, telephone bills, municipal taxes and other Govt. revenues sometime from the family pension and sometime by taking loan from others.

6. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Ac, 1925 for granting probate of last Will and Testament dated 2.3.2005 executed by testator Arun Khasnabish. The respondents stated in their application that the testator during his life time executed his last Will and testament on 2.3.2005 in presence of attesting witnesses and at the time of execution of the Will, the testator was in disposing state of mind and without being influenced and coerced by anybody, he executed the last Will and Testament voluntarily and by such execution, he bequeathed his all movable and immovable properties to his two sons and his wife i.e. the appellant herein. By the said Will and Testament, the appellant was provided the family pension and the share of the testator in monthly income schedule account No. 13333497 in Dhaleswar post office. No executor has been appointed in the said Will. The amounts of assets which are likely to come to the beneficiaries are about Rs. 2 lakhs.

7. The appellant opposite party submitted the written statement before the trial court stating, inter alia, that the testator married her on 14.8.1981 after expiry of his first wife, namely, Ama Khasnabish. She also stated that the signature in the Will was not the signature of her husband Arun Khasnabish and that the said signature was a forged one and signed by somebody else and the petitioners, respondents herein, are not entitled to get probate as prayed for.

8. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for deciding the suit:

1. Whether the will was duly executed by the testator late Arun Khasnabish?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get probate in respect of the Will and testament dated 2.3.2005?

9. The appellant produced the Identity Card of the Election Commission, Copy of the Ration Card, Survival certificate and pension payment order marked as Exhibit-A, B, C and D series and the respondents also submitted one original registered Deed of Sale No. 1-5106 dated 14.7.1080, prayer for extension of three months service by the testator, Arun Khasnabish after superannuation.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court allowed application filed by the petitioner-respondents for granting probate by the impugned judgment dated 23.9.2010.

11. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the appellant preferred the instant appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being the legally married wife, she is entitled to get the share of land and buildin