MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–The original plaintiff Jato Singh had filed this first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.1.1974 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Gaya in Title Suit No.1 of 1973/ 15 of 1973-D.J.

2. The original appellant Jato Singh had filed an application for the grant of letters of administration annexing certified copy of the registered will. The appellant’s case in short was that Matukdhari Singh father of the plaintiff appellant, Jaldhari Singh, Guro Singh and Dhanukhdhari Singh were the four brothers, who were separated from each other in status. However, their property was joint. Jaldhari Singh and Guro Singh were unmarried. Mukutdhari Singh died leaving behind the plaintiff appellant. Dhanukhdhari Singh died leaving behind his two daughters who are the defendants. Since the plaintiff was the only male child in the family, all the four brothers were loving him much and the three brothers Jaldhari Singh, Guro Singh and Dhanukhdhari Singh jointly bequeathed their entire shares in all the joint properties to the plaintiff under registered deed of will dated 11.6.1941. However, Dhanukhdhari Singh subsequently, during his life time gifted his four ana share in the joint properties in favour of his two daughters. Therefore, the will remain operative only with respect to 8 ana share of two testators Jaldhari Singh and Guro Singh. Jaldhari Singh died in the year 1952 and Guro Sing died in the year 1959. On the death of the two testators the will came in possession of Dhanukhdhari Singh who was acting against the interest of the plaintiff so plaintiff filed Partition Suit No. 16 of 1960. Since the will was in possession of Dhanukhdhari Singh, the plaintiff could not file the same.

3. The defendants filed contesting written statement therefore, the probate proceeding was converted to a title suit. According to the defendants i.e. the daughters of Dhanukhdhari Singh the will was not executed validly and not attested according to law. The two unmarried testators i.e. Jaldhari Singh and Guro Singh could not be married because of ill reputation and likewise the plaintiff also could not be married. The father-in-law and cousin-in-law of the plaintiff represented that unless a document is executed of the joint properties they will not allow the plaintiff to be married and accordingly on the pressure the will was executed and then the plaintiff was married. Therefore, the will is not the act of free will but it has been executed under the duress and undue influence. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of letters of administration.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues :–

“(1) Is the application for grant of letter of Administration in accordance with law?

(2) Is the will propounded by the plaintiff genuine and valid?

(3) Was the will executed by the free will of the executant and with intent to given effect to?

(4) Whether the will is still subsisting or has been revoked?

(5) Had the plaintiff not denounced the will and acted as if there was no will?

(6) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff entitled?”

5. After trial the learned court below recorded the finding that the will is proved to have been revoked vided paragraph 13 and accordingly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff.

6. The learned senior counsel Mr. Ramakant Sharma appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that all the other findings on other issues are in favour of the plaintiff therefore, the appellant is aggrieved by the finding about revocation of the will by only Dhanukhdhari Singh. The learned counsel submitted that it is the case of the plaintiff that the four brothers were separated but they executed a registered will jointly which is not unknown to the law. The trial court proceeded to decide the question about revocation by Dhanukhdhari Singh assuming that on the death of the two testators the property will devolve on Dhanukhdhari Singh becaus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document