ORDER

1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in appeal from original decree being AFOD No. 431 of 1991 wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the judgment of the trial court, refusing to grant the letter of administration of the Will of one Mst Harkhi Devi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Amrit Singh of Village Ghosrama, District Nalanda died leaving behind his widow Mst Harkhi Devi, two sons, namely, Rajo Singh and Saryug Singh and three daughters, namely, Champa Devi, Kaushalya Devi and Shailya Kumari. Rajo Singh died in the year 1968, leaving behind his two widows, A/o Devi and Durga @ Sumitra Devi. Dhaneshwari Devi and Anil Kumar are respectively the wife and son of Saryug Singh.

3. Mst Harkhi Devi executed a registered Will (Exhibit 1) on 13-6-1973 bequeathing her share in the joint family property in favour of Anil Kumar under the guardianship of his mother Dhaneshwari Devi. The Will was scribed by one Ambika Prasad and witnessed by eight persons including Balmukund Sharma and Rameshwar Upadhyay i.e. PWs 4 and 5 respectively. Dhaneshwari Devi being the natural guardian of Anil Kumar filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short "the Act") for grant of letters of administration. The defendant-appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") entered appearance and filed their written statement contesting the Will. The trial court framed the following six issues for consideration:

"1. Is the suit maintainable?

2. Has the plaintiff got cause of action for the suit?

3. Is the suit barred by the law of limitation?

4. Whether the Will dated 13-6-1973 executed by Mst Harkhi Devi in favour of the plaintiff is genuine and valid?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to decree for letters of administration of the Will dated 13-6-1973?

6. To what relief or reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled?"

4. Parties were permitted to lead evidence. In order to prove the Will, two out of eight attesting witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and 5 were examined by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent").

5. The trial court after appraisal of the entire evidence, dismissed the petition for grant of letters of administration.

6. Being aggrieved against the order of the trial court, Anil Kumar, the beneficiary under the Will filed the appeal (AFOD No. 431 of 1991) in the High Court. The High Court, on reappreciation of the evidence, accepted the c evidence adduced by PWs 4 and 5 and held that the Will was validly executed. Both the witnesses had deposed that the contents of the Will were read out to Mst Harkhi Devi and, after understanding the contents thereof, Mst Harkhi Devi put her thumb impression on the Will and, that they had signed the Will in her presence and later on the Will was got registered.

7. The case set up by the appellant that the Will was a forged document or that Mst Harkhi Devi was not of sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will (Ext. 1) was not accepted. It has been held that the appellant failed to place any material on record to show that the Will was a forged document. The thumb impression of Mst Harkhi Devi could not be compared as admittedly no other thumb impression of hers was available for comparison.

8. Counsel for the appellant has been heard at length.

9. We have perused the statements of PWs 4 and 5 as well as the order under challenge. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the Will had been duly proved. Both the witnesses have deposed that Mst Harkhi Devi was in a sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the Will; that she had put her thumb impression on the Will after f understanding the contents thereof; and that they had put their signatures on the Will in the presence of Mst Harkhi Devi and in the presence of each other. Minor contradictions pointed out by the coun