Appellant/objector being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 21.11.2011 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran in Probate Case No. 24/1995 whereby and whereunder held the Will dated 24.05.1995 executed by the deceased Chandra Giri genuine and in pursuance thereof, granted Letter of Administration in favour of applicant/respondent, Durga Giri for management of temple property, filed the instant petition.

2. Applicant/respondent filed a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration with respect to the properties so detailed on account of Will dated 24.05.1995 executed by late Chandra Giri son of Sheodhari Giri of village, Mangalpur, West Champaran in his favour after the death of aforesaid Chandra Giri on 24.08.1995, after completing the other legal obligations.

3. Appellant/objector appeared and filed WS wherein, apart from raising ornamental objection, had also challenged the status of the applicant who had been identified as shrewd litigant, dishonest, greedy and further, in order to grab the property belonging to the deity, maneuvered the whole event and as such, prayed for dismissal of the application. It has further been averred that deceased, Chandra Giri died in joint-ness with the objector. It has also been submitted that Ful Kuer, wife of Chandra Giri who had self acquisition had endowed 1 Bigha 10 Katthas and 5 Dhurs to Shankarji vide registered deed of endowment dated 22.05.1980. It has also been submitted that other properties have also been gifted to Shankarji. It has further been disclosed that the Ful Kuer herself as well as the heirs after her death have been picked up in order to maintain the temple as well as to provide Rajbhog, Samaiya, service to the deity, saint which will be provided form the usufruct which, after death of Ful Kuer was being performed by the Chandra Giri (deceased) and after his death, objector, as has been nominated by the mass in general identifying the Institution to be public in character, began to look after. After death of Chandra Giri, his Shradha was performed by the objector. Property as well as temple is being looked after by the objector. Bataidari claim was advanced under Bataidari Case No. 96/1997 against objector at the instance of one Raghunath Yadav and the same was duly contested by him relating to the properties possessed by deity. Rent is being paid by him.

4. It has further been submitted that applicant happens to be a stranger who, after death of Chandra Giri, created a forged Will in question taking in collusion with his own men. The fact remains that Chandra Giri never shown inclination towards execution of a Will in favour of applicant nor ever disclosed his desire before anybody including the witnesses so named regarding execution of Will. Chandra Giri was a literate and therefore, it was expected that in case, the Will in question happens to be his last Will, then in that event, instead of LTI, signature of Chandra Giri would have been there. Absence of signature is indicative of the fact that a forged and fabricated document was prepared and in likewise manner, he was impersonated. It has further been disclosed that Chandra Giri was continuing with feeble physical, mental condition since before his death on account of his old age.

5. After considering the rival pleadings, the learned lower court framed following issues:-

I. Whether petition for Probate is maintainable?

II. Whether Will executed by Chandra Giri on 24.05.1995 is genuine and free from all doubts?

III. Whether Chandra Giri was entitled to execute will for the land in question in favour of petitioner Durga Giri?

6. After formulating the above issues the learned lower court decided the same in favour of applicant/respondent. Hence this appeal.

7. While assailing the judgment impugned, manifold arguments have been raised. The first and foremost argument happens to be relating to propriety of the judgment impugned in the background of the fact that app