Rajiv Roy, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15.7.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Aurangabad, in L.A. No. Case No. 69/13/2/15 by which the prayer for grant of Letter of Administration with respect of assets of Testator/opposite party was negated.

2. The facts of the case is/are as follows:—

3. One Rupiya Devi had executed a registered deed of Will with respect to a land bearing plot no. 604 (area 41/2 of decimal), khata No. 190 in favour of Pawan Sao in the district of Aurangabad. Subsequently, on 18.12.2003 Rupiya Devi died.

4. Thereafter, the Letter of Administration Case No. 69/13/2/15 was preferred by Pawan Sao. It was claimed that the Will was prepared in his favour at the instance of the Testator, Rupiya Devi in the presence of Ramadhar Sharma and she put in her L.T.I. on the document so made.

5. On behalf of the appellants, the following witnesses were examined as follows:—

A.W.-1, Manoj Sao;

A.W.-2, Pawan Sao;

A.W.-3, Ramadhar Sharma;

A.W.-4, Narain Prajapati who identified his signature on the Exhibit-1/A;

A.W.-5, Umesh Sharma who inscribed the Will;

A.W.-6 Parwati Devi is the daughter of Manoj Sao.

6. The exhibits that were put on record were as follows:—

Exhibit-1/A the Will;

Exhibit-1/B the signature of the

A.W.5 on the Will'

Exhibit-2 the death certificate.

7. As there was no opposition to the matter, the witnesses were not cross-examined and were discharged.

8. Thereafter, the learned Court vide an order dated 15.7.2016 came to the following findings:—

Rupiya Devi-"Nani" of Manoj Sah executed registered Will in his favour having been pleased with his services as he claimed. However, there are many suspicious circumstance surrounding the present case. The foremost amongst them was the missing ingredients of Section 2 (k) of the Indian Succession Act.

9. The learned Court however recorded that the said ingredient is completely missing in the particular case. It was further observed that the Will must narrate that the Testator is the only person entitled to execute the Will regarding property but the same has not been mentioned in Schedule-1 and it can be presumed that it was done with ulterior motive to make wrongful loss to the other persons.

10. Further, the date of execution of the Will is 27.6.2003 and the death of Testator is 18.12.2002 showing that she died within six months of the said execution. She was 80 years of age and no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the applicant/petitioner that at the time of execution of Will she was mentally fit to understand everything regarding the said execution.

11. There was another statutory duty upon the petitioner to disclose the name of all the relatives or relation with the persons who had executed the Will as mandated in Section 372(c) of the Indian Succession Act and again it is important to bring on record Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act:—

372. Application for certificate.—(1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and verified by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars, namely:—

(a) the time of the death of the deceased;

(b) the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits;

(c) the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;

(d) the right in which the petitioner claims;

(e) the absence of any impediment under Section 370 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment, to the grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof if it were granted; and

(f) the debts and securities in respect of which the certificate is applied for.

(2) If the petition c