The execution and integrity of a Will can be upheld despite minor discrepancies or the presence of the beneficiary at signing, provided proper attesting witnesses confirm its authenticity.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - The present appeal arises from the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No. TS(Probate) 01 of 2018, whereby and whereunder a Probate Certificate was granted in favour of the sole respondent No.-1, that is, Smt. Manisha Das (Guha) in respect of the Will property mentioned in the schedules of the Will itself by the testator.

2. Shortly stated, the respondent No.-1 had filed an application for granting probate stating that the testator executed the Will dated 12.08.2010 bequeathing her properties described in the schedule of the application in her favour. The Will was executed by the testator at Agartala in presence of the witnesses. The deceased at the time of death had a fixed place of abode at Shibnagar, Agartala within the jurisdiction of this court.

3. Having receipt of summons, the predecessor of the appellants, i.e. the husband of appellant No.-1 and father of the appellants No. 2 and 3 had contested the suit by filing written objection. It is pertinent to mention herein that the predecessor of the appellants, was one of the sons of the testator and, he being physically challenged contested the said application through his attorney, the appellant No. 1(b), namely, Shri Rahul Raja Das.

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

(i) Is the petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 by the petitioner Smt. Manisha Das (Guha) maintainable in its present form and nature?

(ii) Whether the unregistered Will dated 12.08.2010 executed by Late Kamal Rani Das, was her last testament and Will?

(iii) Is the unregistered Will dated 12.08.2010 allegedly executed by Late Kamal Rani Das, a genuine Will/testament?

(iv) Whether the subject matter of the Will dated 12.08.2010 has been defined clearly and specifically?

(v) Is the petitioner Smt. Manisha Das(Guha) entitled to get a probate of the Will dated 12.08.2010 as prayed for?

5. The parties had adduced their respective evidences. The Propounder i.e. the beneficiary of the Will, respondent No. 1 herein, had introduced the Will as Exbt. 1. The appellant No. 1(b) introduced one Power of Attorney by which his father had authorized him to file written statement and adduce evidence.

6. Thereafter, after consideration of the evidence and materials on records and having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, learned Additional District Judge in his findings held that the respondent No. 1 had been able to prove the very genuinity and integrity of the Will executed by her late mother, Smt. Kamal Rani Das in her favour.

7. Feeling aggrieved, and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal before this court.

8. I have heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ankita Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. P. Chakraborty and Mrs. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

9. Since the matter relates to the Will, the question centers around as to whether the propounder i.e. the beneficiary of the Will has been able to prove genuine execution and registration of the Will, and, on the other hand, whether the appellants have been able to establish the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.

10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, has contended, firstly, the contents of the W