Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.--The present appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.2.2010 passed in Probate Case No. 5 of 2001 / 7 of 2009 by 3rd Additional District Judge, Gopalganj. By virtue of this order, learned Additional District Judge refused to grant probate with respect to the Will dated 15.9.1999 and dismissed the probate case.

2. Appellants in the present appeal had filed a petition for grant of probate with respect to a will dated 15.9.1999 purportedly executed in their favour by their uncle Madhuban Chaudhur. Initially a petition was filed making the State of Bihar as the sole opposite party, but later on, Vidanti Devi, daughter of Madhuban Chaudhur as well as his wife Most. Phulsundara Devi was added as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Phulsundara Devi died during the pendency of the probate case and therefore, her name was expunged and the matter proceeded.

3. Appellants’ claim is that one Brit Chaudhur had four sons. They were Mishri Chaudhur, Maharshi Chaudhur, Mahesh Chaudhur and Gani Chaudhur. To Mishri Chaudhur four sons were born, namely, Madhuban Chaudhur, Baliram Chaudhur (died issueless), Raj Kumar Chaudhur and Ramayan Chaudhur (died issueless).

4. Maharshi Chaudhur had one son namely, Sant Chaudhur, Mahesh Chaudhur had one daughter Manura Devi and Gani Chaudhur died issueless. The present appellants are sons of Raj Kumar Chaudhur. In other words, Madhuban Chaudhur is the own uncle of appellants as Raj Kumar Chaudhur and Madhuban Chaudhur were own brothers.

5. As per appellants Madhuban Chaudhur, the testator, died leaving behind Most. Phulsundara Devi, wife and a daughter named Vidanti Devi. All these appellants lived with Madhuban Chaudhur as their sons and took care of him like their father. Because of the love and care he supposed to have executed a will in their favour on 15.9.1999 with respect to his landed property, measuring an area of 3 bighas, 16 kathas and 14 ¾ dhurs.

6. It is the case of the appellants that the will was drafted by one Katib, Sachchidanand Prasad, who got the will read and after being acquainted with contents he got attestation done on their own by one Gajadhar Singh, who fixed his thumb mark on the will. Gajadhar Singh and Sant Chaudhur were witnesses to the execution, who have put their signatures as witnesses. The deed of will was handed over to the appellants for future purpose.

7. Madhuban Chaudhur died soon after the execution of the will, i.e. on 11.11.1999. The probate case was filed on 29.3.2001 which was registered as Probate Case No. 5 of 2001/7 of 2009. Wife and daughter of Madhuban Chaudhur, the testator, filed their written statement and contested the will. It was their stand that there never was a will as no will was executed by Madhuban Chaudhur. The appellants never lived with Madhuban Chaudhur or served him. The story of Madhuban Chaudhur directing Sachchidanand Prasad, the Katib, to execute a deed of will is totally false. The will, in fact, was a forged piece of document, which was being used by these appellants out of sheer greed to grab the property of Madhuban Chaudhur to ensure that the property did not devolve on his widow or his daughter because there was no male member in that line of succession so far as Madhuban Chaudhur was concerned. The property of Madhuban Chaudhur has been in possession of the O.Ps. It is their case that Most. Phulsundara Devi executed deeds of gift in respect of the entire property left behind by Madhuban Chaudhur if favour of her daughter namely, Vidanti Devi on 6.8.2002 and 8.8.2002. These deed of gifts are duly registered documents and the properties are in her possessions. It is the case of the respondents that these appellants by taking Gajadhar Singh and Sant Chaudhur as well as Sachchidanand Prasad, the Katib, in collusion, created such a document to grab the property of Madhuban Chaudhur as they did not want that property to go out of the family, into the hands of a widow or the daughter, who was duly married.