Mool Chand Garg, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 06.05.2004 passed by Ld. ADJ in probate case granting probate of the Will dated 20.04.1975 alleged to have been executed by deceased Man Mohan Dewani s/o Sh. Tirath Dass Dewan in favour of the respondent, Sh.Paras Ram Tirath Dewani.

2. The appellants are Ms.Usha Dewani widow of Sh.Man Mohan Dewani and his daughter Ms.Shirein.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal are that the testator lived in United States of America with his wife. A daughter was also born to them. He expired on 19.06.1976. The respondent who is the brother of the deceased testator claimed that a Will was executed by the testator on 20.04.1975 appointing the respondent as the sole executor of the Will. A perusal of the Will shows that the testator was the absolute owner of property bearing No. 86-87, Model Basti, Delhi and was also running Filmistan Photo Studio in a portion of the sold property as proprietor thereof. As per the will, the testator bequeathed the abovementioned property and the business to the respondent while his 1/5th undivided share in house No. III-G/26, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi was bequeathed in favour of his wife on the condition that she'll receive this share if she came to India and settles in India otherwise her share had to go to the two brothers of the testator, namely, Shri Hassa Ram and Shri Gobind Ram.

4. The appellants filed their objections opposing grant of probate petition on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation and that Will dated 20.04.1975 was a forged and fabricated document. It was alleged that some blank papers signed by the testator for emergency use were misused by the respondent for writing the Will on the same. Another important ground on which objection was raised was that the testator being a young man aged 35 years was having sound health and hence no occasion arises for a young man to execute a Will at such an early age. The objectors have also claimed that the signature of one of the attesting witness i.e. Shri Hassa Ram (brother of the testator) were forged and not genuine.

5. In reply to the objections, the main ground taken up by the respondent was that though he was in Government service, after communication with the objectors and on being reassured by the objector that she had no interest in the property of the deceased testator in Delhi, he resigned from his job to look after the business and property. The respondent further stated that he cleared up all of the testator's tax liabilities from his own pocket.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. ADJ framed the following issues:-

"(1) Whether the deceased Sh. Man Mohan Dewani had executed Will dated 20.04.1975 in the presence of the witnesses and while in sound and disposing mind?

(2) Whether the petition is time barred?

(3) Relief."

7. With regard to the first issue, the respondent examined Shri V.D. Banati, one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, as PW1, who testified that the attesting witnesses and the testator had signed in presence of each other and that the testator was possessed of sound mind at the time of making the Will. Further during cross examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that the will was a forged will.

8. In addition to examining PW1 Shri V.D.Banati, the respondent examined himself as PW-2. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent are PW-3 Sh.Jasbir Singh, Dealing Assistant from Ministry of Surface Transport; PW4 Sh.S.S.Arora, PW5 Shri Hari Singh, Record Keeper from the office of Assistant Collector, Sadar Paharganj Zone, MCD; PW-7 Sh.S.S.Arora and PW-8 Mrs.R.K.Vij, Examiner of questioned documents.

9. On the other hand, the appellant examined herself as RW1 and RW2 Sh.S.P.Singh, Handwriting Expert

10. The basic objections taken up by the appellant before the ld. ADJ in objecting to the grant of probate were two fold i.e. neither the will in question was signed by Sh.Man Mohan Dewani, the deceased testator, nor it was attes