( 1 ) THE present appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th January, 2004 granting Letters of Administration in favour of respondent no. 1, namely, Dr. N. P. S. Chawla who was the original petitioner in Probate Case No. 22/1991.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Smt. Ram Pyari chawla died on 27th October, 1990 leaving behind three sons ; namely, H. P. S. Chawla, Chawla, Dr. N. P. S. Chawla, shri T. P. S. Chawla and a daughter Smt. Nirmal Devi daniere. She also left a Will dated 4th July, 1986. Consequent to her death, her son Dr. N. P. S. Chawla filed a petition seeking grant of Probate/letters of administration in respect of Will dated 4th July, 1986. No dispute to the Will was raised by any of the legal heirs except her son T. P. S. Chawla whom she denied a share in her property except for a token sum of Rs. 1/ -. Her said son filed objections to the Will, but during the pendency of the petition before the learned Single Judge, it was stated by his counsel on instructions from him, that he did not wish to press the objections provided paragraph 4 of the Will which contained reasons as to why the testator denied him a share in her estate except for a token of Rs. 1/-, was expunged while granting probate/letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the objector who is respondent no. 2 before us is that paragraph 4 of the Will contains scandalous, defamatory and libelous statements against him and the same is therefore liable to be expunged. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 17th January, 2004 has held that the will in question was the last testament of Smt. Ram Pyari chawla and consequently, appointed the petitioner/respondent no. 1, namely, Dr. N. P. S. Chawla as the executor of the Will. The learned Single Judge also agreeing with the submission of respondent no. 2-Shri t. P. S. Chawla held that paragraph 4 of the Will which contained reasons for excluding him from the estate of the testator was defamatory/scandalous in nature. Accordingly, it was directed that the Registry would ensure that the instrument of probate would exclude paragraph 4 of the Will dated 4th July, 1986.

( 3 ) SHRI Arun Khosla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was a statutory prohibition on the power of the Court to exclude or expunge any part of the Will containing statement/reasons for exclusion of respondent no. 2 from the estate of the testator while granting Probate/letters of administration. It was vehemently urged that a Probate court cannot go beyond declaring the authenticity of the will and it therefore cannot alter, modify or delete any paragraph of the Will. In support, reliance was placed upon SUSHILA BALA SAHA VS. SARASWATI MONDAL AIR 1991 calcutta 166. In the said case, the Court held as under :

"a court of Probate is said to be a Court of Conscience which is not to be influenced by private arrangements of the parties. Either it grants probate to a Will or it rejects such grant. For such a court, it is said, there is no middle path for a happy compromise. The rule of law is stated to be that there can be no probate by consent. Either it is grant or refusal. The Court has to be satisfied in each case whether the Will proposed is truly the Will of a capable testator or not. It is not concerned with any other arrangement. It has been said over and over again that there is no such thing as conditional probate or an amended probate. It is either all or nothing. That seems to be sensible enough law. "

( 4 ) RELIANCE was also placed upon SISIR KUMAR chandra AND ANR. VS. SMT. MONORAMA CHANDRA and ORS. AIR 1972 Calcutta 283.

( 5 ) IT was also contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant was also one of the named executors in the Will and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge granting Probate and appointing respondent no. 1 alone as executor of the Will was not justified. In this regard,