by examining himself and the two attesting witnesses, ought not have thrown out the case of the plaintiff on the basis of suspicion and doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will in question. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the probate of the Will as prayed for by the plaintiff be granted. 12. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the evidence in the record, particularly the evidence of D.W.4- the handwriting expert and the fact that no property has been bequeathed to either the defendant No.2- the widow of Teshlal Choudhary or defendant No.1-his son and that the signature of the attesting witnesses were not appearing in the Will filed in Letter of Administration Case No.94 of 1999 is sufficient to show that the Will sought to be probated is a forged and fabricated one. Besides, it is further submitted that the fact that in the earlier B.B.C. Case No.7 of 1998 and Complaint Case No.565 of 1998, the plaintiff did not mention about the existence of any such Will and claimed 1/3 of rent from the tenant instead of the entire rent and that in the construction of the building all the three parties to the suit contributed equally goes to show that the Will in question is not genuine. Hence, it is submitted that the learned court below has rightly dismissed the suit, therefore this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
