JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. The appeal is proceeding ex-parte against the respondents, as they did not appear even after valid service of notice. It has been informed that they had not appeared before the court below.

4. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred, under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Gopalganj in Probate Case No.22 of 2009.

5. By the impugned judgment, the learned court below has dismissed the prayer of the appellant to grant probate of the registered Will dated 01.06.1998 (Exhibit 1) executed by Tapeshwar Mahto in favour of the appellant.

6. Tapeshwar Mahto had one more full brother namely, Nageshwar Mahto. The appellant is son of Nageshwar Mahto. Chandrika Mahto, the son of Tapeshwar Mahto died during lifetime of Tapeshwar Mahto leaving behind his widow, Uma Devi and his daughter, Chanpatiya. Uma Devi and Chanpatiya were party before the court below and are respondents herein.

7. It is uncontroverted case of the appellant that after death of