Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. – The sole appellant/propounder has preferred instant appeal against judgment dated 11.05.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-FTC Court No.IV, Kaimur, Bhabua in Probate Case No. 137 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned lower court dismissed the petition filed on his behalf for grant of probate.

2. Appellant/propounder had filed a petition purported to be under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of probate of ‘Will’ dated 06.01.2003 executed by Vindhyavashni Singh in favour of appellant/applicant. Furthermore, it has been incorporated that the aforesaid Vindhyavashni Singh died on 12.01.2006 at his permanent place of abode at Village, Akhlaspur, PS-Bhabua, Distt-Kaimur. Furthermore, ‘Will’ in question happens to be the last ‘Will’ of the testator. It has also been averred that the ‘Will’ was duly executed by the testator, Vindhyavashni Singh in presence of witnesses, Nandu Singh, son of Surajbhan Singh of Village-Akhlaspur as well as Ramakant Pandey resident of Village, Ufrauliya who, as per instruction of testator put their signature respectively. It has also been asserted that at the time of death, the testator had fixed place of abode at Village, Akhlaspur within the original jurisdiction of the court and in likewise manner, the property so detailed under Schedule-A of the plaint also lie within the original jurisdiction of the court. It has also been asserted that deceased died leaving behind his son, Deosharan Singh and grandson, Shivsharan Singh, besides applicant. It has further been stated that the ‘Will’ was executed by the testator while possessing sound physical as well as mental condition. The testator was very much capable to execute the ‘Will’ in favour of applicant who happens to be his one of the grand sons.

3. Though, Girija Kuar was not at all cited, however, after her appearance, the learned lower court allowed her to be impleaded as objector vide order dated 19.04.20008 and on account thereof, certain new facts have been incorporated by way of amendment. It has been averred that Girija Kuar should not be allowed to be identified as an intervener/objector because of the fact that she does not happen to be widow of late Vindhyavashni Singh. The assertion of Girija Kuar that she happens to be the widow of late Vindhyavashni Singh and further shown her permanent address as village, Kudasan is wrong. It has further been incorporated that Girija Kuar is the daughter of late Ramekbal Singh. It has further been incorporated that father of Mahipal Singh and Ramekbal Singh were known to grandfather of applicant. Girija Kuar, who was wife of somebody else, was deserted by her husband and was residing with her father on account of, dispute in the family whereunder Girija Kuar was harassed and ousted by the family members of her Sasural, therefore, at the request of Ramekbal Singh and father of Mahipal Singh, Vindhyavashni Singh accommodated her as maid-servant to look after the affairs of the house as well as property of Vindhyavashni Singh at Village, Kudasan in and near about 1976 and for that, she was paid cash as well as also given grains. It has also been asserted that the aforesaid feelings of Vindhyavashni Singh have been honoured even after his death. However, it has been specifically asserted that there happens to be no relationship in between Vindhyavashni Singh and Girija Kuar. It has further been asserted that when applicant requested Girija Kuar to vacate the house, so that others be employed to look after the affairs on account of her old age and was not found fit to be retained in the service of maid-servant, Mahipal Singh, a close associate of Girija Kuar hatched a conspiracy whereunder new story has been introduced that Girija Kuar was married with Vindhyavashni Singh and is his wife. It has also been asserted that Girija Kuar is neither the first wife nor legally wedded wife of Vindhyavashni Singh. The nam