Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.—I have already heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.03.2009 passed in Letters of Administration Case No. 01 of 2001/T.S.No. 02 of 2004 by 1st Additional District Judge, Katihar, dismissing the suit, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal.

Initially, against the judgment and order impugned, F.A.No.73 of 2009 was filed, but after observation by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was converted into Misc.Appeal No. 309 of 2012.

3. The plaintiff/appellant Ramawtar Choudhary is father of late Champa Lal Choudhary. Champa Lal Choudhary died on 06.08.1999. The plaintiff/appellant field Letters of Administration Case No.01 of 2001 on the basis of Will deed dated 16.06.1986 (Ext.1), said to have been executed by Lachhiya Devi in favour of Champa Lal Choudhary. The case was converted into Title Suit No. 02 of 2004 after impleading respondent no.1 as defendant on his application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’).

4. The brief facts of the case is that Lachhiya Devi bequeathed her property described in Schedule-A in favour of late Champa Lal Choudhary through a will dated 16.06.1986 (Ext.1), which is an unregistered deed. The testatrix Lachhiya Devi died on 02.03.1987 in her residential quarters. The plaintiff/appellant has described the relatives of Lachhiya Devi as Most.Chulhai Devi and Kalawati Devi, but the plaintiff/appellant did not mention the relation of these two ladies with late Lachhiya Devi and only it has been mentioned in the plaint/application that they were relatives of late Lachhiya Devi. It has been mentioned in the application/plaint that Lachhiya Devi executed a Will deed in favour of son of the plaintiff/appellant on 16.06.1986 and she bequeathed Schedule- A property in his favour through that Will deed. His son Champa Lal Choudhary died in the year 1999. Though the plaintiff/appellant had not mentioned the date of death of Champa Lal Choudhary in his application, for the reasons best known to him, but during his deposition in para-3, for the first time, he disclosed the date of death of Champa Lal Choudhary as 06.08.1999. He applied for grant of Letters of Administration being class II heir of the deceased, after discovery of the Will deed found from a box, after the death of Champa Lal Choudhary.

5. Respondent no.1, Sushil Chandra Mishra filed an application for his impleadment as intervenor under Order I, Rule 10 of ‘the Code’ before the trial court. That application was allowed by the court below vide its order dated 03.12.2004. Thereafter, the case was converted into T.S.No. 02 of 2004. The respondent Sushil Chandra Mishra had purchased the Schedule I property from Munna Sah @ Munna Yadv and his son Ramashish Yadav @ Ramashish Sah respondent no.2 and 3 respectively.

6. The case of the intervenor/respondent no.1 Sushil Chandra Mishra is that the plaintiff/appellant had already filed T.S.No. 22 of 2001 in respect of the same property in which Sushil Chandra Mishra had intervened and became the defendant. Despite this fact, the plaintiff/appellant did not implead Sushil Chandra Mishra in the present case with some ulterior motives. As per the averments of respondent no.1, the property originally belonged to Mahadeo Sah and Mahadeo Sah had two wives; his first wife was Nehra Devi while the second wife was Lachhiya Devi (the alleged testatrix). Mahadeo Sah had bequeathed his property to Munna Sah (respondent no.2), who is his adopted son, vide registered Will deed dated 06.01.1956 (Ext.D). Mahadeo Sah died in 1958. After his death, his two wives Nehra Devi and Lachhiya Devi adopted the son of Munna Sah, namely Ramashish Yadav @ Ramashish Sah (respondent no.3 herein) through a registered adoption deed dated 16.06.1980 (Ext.E). It has been mentioned that the Will deed sought for Letters of Administration is forged and fabricated and no Letters o