test of cross-examination on this aspect as also various other aspects pleaded by her, hence the appellant cannot contend that the Will should be set aside allegedly on the ground that the deceased father/testator/Sh. Bisweswar Chatterjee had promised to give her a share in the property. Even assuming for the sake of arguments, that the deceased father had promised to give to the appellant a share, the same cannot be said to create legal basis for questioning the validity of the subject Will, inasmuch as, merely by the appellant being promised would not mean that the deceased testator was bound to give her a share in the property owned by the deceased testator and the final intention of the devolution of the property can only be known by the Will of the deceased testator, and the duly executed Will in the present case gives the property only to the petitioner to exclusion of all other legal heirs. As already noted above, four other brothers and sisters have given their consent to the grant of probate and it is only the appellant who had objected to the same. In my opinion therefore the argument of the appellant that the father had promised her a share but since the Will gave property owned by the deceased testator only to the petitioner, and therefore the Will be set aside, is not an argument
