in question. It is stated that as a matter of fact, neither any evidence was produced by respondent No.2 in order to prove this forgery and fabrication nor was any suggestion given to any of the attesting witnesses that the Will in question is forged and fabricated. It was contended that the probate court is not to comment on the contents of the Will but has to only see as to whether the Will in question was validly and properly executed or not. It has been contended that in the instant case, not only RW-1, Manish Narang, attesting witness but even the second attesting witness OW-1, Q.L. Kanijow had stated that the deceased testator had signed the Will in their presence and both of them had put their signatures on the Will. It was stated that this statement of the two attesting witnesses, whose testimony has not been demolished, clearly establish the Will in question being a genuine Will and properly executed by the deceased testator. Merely because the wife of the testator had predeceased him and this fact was not mentioned in the Will or that the life interest in the Will in question was created in favour of the wife of the deceased testator would not make the Will as invalid as it has been exhibited also.
