( 1 ) THIS appeal by the appellant/plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 5/1997 on the file of the court of District Judge, D. K. , Mangalore, by which he has been refused letter of administration.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred hereinafter as shown in the impugned judgment and decree i. e. , plaintiff and defendants.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal are:plaintiff filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act registered as P and SC No. 26/1996 for grant of letter of administration in connection with Will dated 4. 2. 1987 executed by deceased Charistine Tauro with regard to 23 cents of land in Sy. No. 410/1 of Karkala Kasaba village in his favour. Disputing the Will, it was opposed by the defendants, ie. , children of said deceased. As the claim of plaintiff became contentious, an order was passed for converting the said proceedings into original suit as provided under section 295 of the said Act. Accordingly, suit came to be registered on 17. 1. 1997. A)It is the case of plaintiff that the suit property belonged to the deceased as she was registered as occupant on 24. 6. 1986 after conferring occupancy rights. Her three children.- defendants were residing away from her. So, he was looking after her and her husband and as such, she executed and registered her last Will for the suit property on 4. 2. 1987 in his (Plaintiff s) favour and died on 4. 9. 1991 and consequently, he claimed letter of administration. B)The defendants contested the case. According to them, the deceased had executed her last Will and testament on 25. 6. 1991 in their favour, which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar at karkala and after her death, a suit was filed by Canara Bank, karkalla, against them for recovery of loan and a decree was passed in that suit (O. S. No. 219/1993) and even that decretal debt was also paid by them on 9. 2. 1995 and consequently, execution of Will by her on 4. 2. 1987 cannot be believed. Even otherwise, it is their case that the deceased was not in sound disposing state of mind at the time of alleged Will dated 4. 2. 1987 in favour of plaintiff, who is an utter stranger to family and not even their caste man and, said will has been got up by plaintiff, misusing his knowledge about her solitude and denied that he looked after the deceased and, at any rate, the land, for which she was conferred occupancy rights with certificate of registration issued on 24. 6. 1986 under the Karnataka land Reforms Act, could not have been bequeathed by her in favour of plaintiff a stranger and thus, requested to reject the claim of the plaintiff. C)The plaintiff filed a rejoinder clarifying that out of the properties of the deceased, suit property only had been bequeathed in his favour on 4. 2. 1987 and remaining property held by her was bequeathed under the Will dated 25. 6. 1991 to defendants and that is different from the Will made in his favour and there was no necessity for the deceased to borrow any loan from the Canara bank when he was looking after the deceased and assisting her. D)However, after Trial, the Trial Court held that execution of the will deed in favour of plaintiff by the deceased in sound disposing state of mind is proved but, on the ground that the deceased could not have made Will in respect of the suit property in view of the provisions contained in Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as Act ), dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by it, the plaintiff alone has approached this Court by way of present appeal and not the defendants challenging the finding recorded against them about execution of Will by the deceased in favour of plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE point for consideration is:whether a land, occupancy rights of which have been conferred on a tenant under the Act, could be willed in favour of a stranger within the prohibited period provided under Section 61 of the Act?

( 5 ) SO it is neces