The presumption of validity for registered wills does not eliminate the necessity for compliance with statutory requirements regarding their execution and admissibility as evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order No. 73 dated 26th April, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in O.S. Case No. 26 of 2005, present application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein initiated a proceeding for grant of letter of Administration of the last Will and Testament allegedly executed by one Nani Bhusan Bhattacharyya, since deceased on 19th May, 1958. The said proceeding became contentious. The petitioners are contesting by filing written statement. The petitioners state that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed an application before the Court below praying for marking the original will as an Exhibit. The petitioners state that they contested the said application by filing a written objection. By the impugned order learned Court below allowed the opposite partys application and marked the original Will dated 19.5.1958 as Exhibit 3/1.

4. Mr. Tanmay Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the original Will dated 19th May, 1958 has not been proved in accordance with law and the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity by marking the said Will as an Exhibit only on the ground that the said Will dated 19th May, 1958 is a registered one. He further contended that in their written objection against the plaintiffs prayer for marking the said Will as an exhibit, the opposite parties / petitioners took specific plea that section 63(c) of the SUCCESSION ACT have not been followed to prove the Will along with section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Furthermore, while the said Will was Exhibited, the proviso laid down in section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT were also not followed.

5. His further case is that in their written objection against the main probate application, they have categorically challenged the execution of the said Will in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of their objection. He further contended that PW 2 who is no way connected with alleged execution and registration, has suddenly appeared before the court and deposed that he was present at the time of execution and registration of the Will and he had seen the attesting witnesses to put signatures on the deed and the deed writer was known to him which is not believable. Learned court below ought not to have relied upon the deposition of said PW 2 and marked the documents as an Exhibit.

6. Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties referred the evidenced of PW 2 and contended that PW 2 has categorically stated in his evidence that he was present at that time in the house of Nani Bhusan Bhattacharya along with Nrisingha Prosad Bhattacharya, the deed writer who after writing the said will had read over and explained the contents of the will to Nani Bhusan Bhattacharya, who executed the said will by putting signature on all pages in his presence and also in presence of deed writer and three attesting witnesses. Accordingly, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW 2 and the court below was justified in marking the said document as Exhibit. In this context, he relied upon paragraph 13 of the decision in the case of Ved Mitra Verma v. Dharam Deo Verma reported in (2014) 15 SCC 578. He also relied upon paragraph 19 of the decision in the case of Sangram Singh Premsingh Thakur v. Sarlabai w/o C