Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The Appellants by way of the present Appeal impugn the judgment dated 5th February, 2009 whereby the Probate Petition filed by the Appellant under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of Probate/letter of administration in respect of Will dated 11th March, 1983 allegedly executed by late Shri Karan Singh was dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that Respondent No. 2 is the eldest son of late Shri Karan Singh whereas Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the other sons. The Appellants and the Respondent No. 2 have three more siblings i.e. two brothers and a sister who are not parties to the probate petition. The alleged Will dated 11th March, 1983 executed by late Shri Karan Singh is a registered Will and on a Probate Petition being filed by the Appellants, objections were filed by the eldest son that is the Respondent No. 2 herein. By way of the alleged Will late Shri Karan Singh had bequeathed all his properties to his wife and his four sons excluding the Respondent No. 2/Objector. The objections raised by the Respondent No. 2 were that the alleged Will came into existence in March, 1983 however the Probate Petition was filed in September, 1997 that is more than 14 years after the execution of the Will and thus was barred by limitation. The second material objection was that the Will was executed under the influence and pressure of the Appellants as admittedly Shri Karan Singh was suffering from mouth cancer and thus was not in a position to talk, walk or consult any one or take independent decisions. It is further stated that late Shri Karan Singh died within 15 days of the execution of the alleged Will because of mouth cancer. As Shri Karan Singh was admittedly suffering from mouth cancer, he was not in a position to dictate the Will which is typed in English and thus he was not in sound disposing mind at the time of the alleged execution of the Will. The third objection is that Shri Karan Singh had no authority to execute the Will in respect of joint family properties since the same were purchased from the earnings when the Objector was helping him in the business and having been purchased from joint family earnings, no Will could have been executed in respect of these properties. In view of the objections of the Respondent No. 2 the following issues were framed by the learned Single Judge:-

"1. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? - OPD

2. Whether the Will dated 11.3.1983 is signed and executed by deceased Karan Singh? - OPP

3. Whether late Karan Singh was mentally and physically sound to execute the Will? - OPP

4. Whether Karan Singh had power to execute the Will in respect to the properties in question? - OPP

5. Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?

6. Relief."

3. Issue Nos. 1 and 4 were decided against the Respondent No. 2 whereas the Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the Appellants and with regard to Issue No. 5 it was held that the same was unnecessarily framed and was not required to be answered. Before us the parties have urged Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3. With regard to Issue No. 4 it may be noted that the Respondent No. 2 had filed a separate civil suit for partition and rendition of accounts being CS (OS) No. 1179/1997 which was dismissed on 4th July, 2008 as the Respondent No. 2 had failed to prove that the properties in question were joint family properties. An appeal against the said decision filed by the Respondent No. 2 being RFA (OS) No. 61/2008 was withdrawn vide order dated 12th July, 2010. Thus, the Issues that fall for determination before this Court relate to limitation and the valid execution of the Will with a sound disposition of the testator to execute the Will.

Issue qua Limitation

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.S. Lal v. Vishnu Mitter Govil, 112 (2004) DLT 877 : 2004 (76) DRJ 116, held that the right to apply for