( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judg- ment dated 30th October i975 of a!ea.-aed Single Judge of this Court in F. A. O. No. 4ofl969. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge accepted the appeal of the respondent herein against the judgment of the trial court. The trial court had vide its judgment dated 4-11-1968 allowed the petition under Section 278 of (he Indian Succession Act and granted Setters of administration ia favour of the pelitianer (appellant herein ).

( 2 ) THE facts in the present appeal are that the appellant filed a peti- tion under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of letters of administration with respect to the Will dated 15th May 1964, Ex. P-l. The Will was made by Mahant Narsingh Dass, Chela ofmahantparshotam Dais, whereby the testator bequeathed all his movable and immovable property in favour of the appellant Har Narain and the respondent Budh Ram in the ratio of half and half each with a rider that if Budh Ram would sell his half share, it would be so only with the consent of Har Narain. It is a registered Will. The testator died on 19th May 1964, i. e. just four days after making and getting registered the said Will. The appellant Har Nsrain moved the petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act with a copy of the Will attached on 12tn March 1965. Caveat/objections were filed by Budhram, the other legatee under the Will who was also arrayed as respondent in the petition. The following objections were taken :-

(A) Execution and validity of the Will was denied ; (b) Mahant Nar Singh Dass s right or authority to execute the Will in respect of properties was disputed. It was stated that the properties belonged to the particu lar sect and therefore the testator had no right to make a Will qua the same ; (c) Thathe Will was a forged document ; and (d) That the alleged Will was the result of fraud, collusion and coercion.

( 3 ) THE learned District Judge who dealt with the matter, framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to letters of administration ? 2. Whether the Will has been duly and properly executed ? 3. Relief. "

( 4 ) AN order was also passed oni 13th December 1965 by the trial court that no issue need be framed in these proceedings regarding the right or authority of the testator to make the Will.

( 5 ) THE District Judge trying the petition held vide order dated 4th November 1965 that the execution of the Will in the present case satiisfied the tests laid down in various judgments of the Supreme Court and the Will being a registered document was held to be a genuine document. Therefore, both the issues were decided in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was granted letters of administration.

( 6 ) BUDH Ram being dissatisfied with the said decision filed an appeal in this court which was registered as F. A. O. No. 4 of 1969. The learned Single Judge reversed the decision of the trial court and accepted the appeal holding that the Will had not been duly and properly executed. Thus both the issues were decided against the petitioner and the petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of letters of administration was dismissed. It is against the said jadgmeat of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal has been filed.

( 7 ) AT the outset a questios was raised about the scope of the present appeal since the case really involves reappraisal of the evidence on record. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the scope of a letters patent appeal is much wider as compared to that of a Second appeal under Section ioo of the Code,of Civil Procedure wherein appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. It was submitted that there is no such limitation on the powers of the Court while dealing with a letters patent appeal, specially in a case of the present type which is one of reversal of the judgment of the first court. Reference was invited in this co