S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This first appeal Under Sec. 299 of the Indian Succession Act arises out of a judgment dated 29th January, 1986 passed by Shri S. Narayan in Probate Case No. 1 of 1982, whereby and whetherunder the said learned Court allowed an application filed by the respondents for grant of Letters of Administration in relation to the will dated 14-9-1973 executed by Mst. Sundarmani Devi.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. Mst. Sundarmani Devi executed a registered will dated 14-9-1973. She died on 23-12-1981 at village Sikki Kala. According to the respondents, Mst. Sundarmani Devi had great love and affection for the petitioner, as she had rendered services to her husband. She out of her love and affection and in view of the services rendered, executed and registered the aforementioned will in her favour On the other hand, the case of the appellants was that the testatrix had no authority to execute the said will. According to the appellants, Sundarmani Devi being the wife of Lalji Singh, had no concern with the lands under the will nor she had any interest therein.

4. It appears that prior to execution of the said will, Sundarmani Devi had filed an application Under Sec. 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for grant of permission to execute the said will and therein the appellants were heard and by an order dated 11-9-1973, permission was duly accorded to Sundarmani Devi to execute the said will in a case bearing No. 3 of 1973-74 and the aforementioned will was executed in terms of the aforementioned order.

5. An appeal was preferred by the appellants against the said order but the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in terms of his order dated 10-10-1974.

6. The learned Court below found that the will was genuine and the same was validly executed.

7. Mr. K.K. Sahay, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the parties are cheros by caste and thus, they are governed in the matter of inheritance and succession by their own customary laws and not under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

8. It was submitted that even assuming that the parties were sufficiently hincuised and were thus governed under the provisions of Hindu Law in the matter of inheritance and succession; but the provisions Of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 having no application in relation to the members of the Scheduled Tribe, Sundarmani Devi, under the old Hindu Law had merely a limited interest in the property in question and in that view of the matter too she was not competent to execute the will in question. The learned Counsel, in this connection, has relied upon a decision in Mohari Mahto V. Mokaram Mahto, reported in AIR 1963 Pat 466. In Chotrai Manjhi V/s. Rupi Manjhian, reported in 1990 (1) BLJR 501 and in Daudwa Uraon V/s. Karueluous Urqbn, reported in 1988 PLJR 603.

9. The learned Counsel further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the learned Court below to consider this aspect of the matter and it should have come to the conclusion that the aforementioned Sundarmani Devi had no authority to execute the will in question as she was a limited owner. In this connection, reliance has been placed in Jagdeo Singh V/s. Mt. RajaKuer, reported in AIR 1927 Pat 262 and in Shambhu Dayal V/s. Basudeo Sahai, reported in AIR 1970 Alld. 525.

10. Mr. Sahay further submitted that the will in question (Ext. 1) was not legally proved inasmuch as in doing the same, the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act were not complied with. The learned Counsel, in this connection, relied upon Girja Dut. V/s. Gangotri Datt, reported in AIR 1955 SC 346.

11. Mr. P.N. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other baud, submitted that in view of the fact that the respondents obtained prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner for executing the will, it must be held that the said will was genuine. It was further submitted that the will