The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the Probate Court in determining the validity of the will and the requirement for the will to be a product of the free volition of the executor. The judgment also highlighted the distinction between the probate court's role in determining the validity of the will and the civil court's role in deciding the issue of title and interest of the testator to dispose of the property.

JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in Special Civil Suit No.43 of 2016. Initially respondent No.1-anil has preferred an application under section 276 of the Indian Succession act, bearing probate application No.6 of 2012 applying for grant of probate in respect of will-deed dated 11.10.2011 executed by his father Mahadu Nago Chaudhari. By said will agricultural land bearing Block No.459/1 situated at village Khede, Dist. Dhule and rights to recover amount which would be derived under different legal proceedings has been bequeathed in his favour. Since the probate application was resisted by some of the legal heirs of deceased Mahadu, it was converted into Special Civil Suit No.43 of 2016. The testator Mahadu died on 29.08.2012 leaving behind four sons, namely, anil, Ravindra, Suresh, Chandrakant, three duaghters namely, Leelabai, anjanabai, Sulochanabai and widow namely, Yamunabai. Deceased Mahadu bequeathed his entire property in favour of his younger son anil, in exclusion of all other legal heirs. The probate application was resisted by three sons, two daughters whilst widow of Mahadu Yamunabai and one of the daughters Sulochanabai supported anil in grant of probate.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 11.10.2011 in presence of two attesting witnesses Mahadu had executed a will disposing his movable and immovable property. The will was registered with the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Dhule. The testator Mahadu died on 29.08.2012 i.e. after eight months from the execution of will. It is case of propounder (anil) that deceased Mahadu was working as a contractor. Initially, he had a partnership firm with his brothers. However, it was dissolved. There was mutual agreement between Mahadu and his brothers in which all the rights to recover money from the debtors were assigned to Mahadu. During old age for the period of near about 5 to 6 years preceding to his death, Mahadu and his wife Yamunabai were residing with anil. During lifetime Mahadu had disposed his most of the movable and immovable property in favour of his all sons. Mahadu at his own expressed his desire to bequeath the subject property to anil and accordingly at his behest registered will was executed by him in presence of two attesting witnesses.

3. The contesting appellants (defendants) have denied the very execution of will. It is denied that Mahadu had executed will during his lifetime. They denied that Mahadu was mentally and physically fit at the time of execution of will. according to defendants, plaintiff anil under guise of executing power of attorney on the same day fraudulently got executed document of will. It is submitted that there was improper disposition of the property which is a suspicious circumstance. Therefore, the suit for grant of probate was resisted.

4. In the Trial Court the parties led evidence. after appreciating the facts and various relevant circumstances, the Trial Court held that it was a genuine last will executed by the testator while in sound disposing state of mind and granted probate. The Trial Court has also framed issue whether deceased Mahadu was having right to dispose the property? It reveals from the impugned judgment that at the behest of contesting defendants, said issue was framed and answered in the affirmative.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (defendant) strongly assailed the impugned judgment by stating that the will is suspicious. Mahadu was 88 years of age at the time of execution of will. He was not mentally and physically sound to execute the will. On the very day, Mahadu had executed a power of attorney in favour of plaintiff anil authorizing him to attend the pending Court proceedings. It is argued that under guise of executing power of attorney, plaintiff anil by misrepresenting his old aged father Mahadu also got executed the document of will. It is argued that withhin