1. The applicants' application for grant of letters of administration of Will came to be dismissed solely on the ground that the applicants had filed application for letters of administration after over 15 years. Hence, applicants have preferred this appeal.

2. The short facts of the case are as under:-

One Samjubhai Raghavbhai Umretia resident of Village Prabhatpur, District Junagadh had executed a Will on 06/09/1986 and he expired on 01/11/1986. He owned and possessed agricultural land in the village Prabhatpur bearing survey no.61, 110/2 and 86. It is alleged that he owned 13 Acre 13 Guntha land and also, one residential house built up in 500 sq. yards area of land. The respondent no.1 herein is alleged to be first wife of the deceased Samjubhai. The appellant no.1 is the son of deceased and appellant no.2 is the second wife of the Samjubhai. While appellant alleges that the respondent no.1 Diwaliben was separated by divorce and there was no issue through first wife, on the other hand, the respondent disputed the assertion of the divorce and alleges that there were two daughters through first wife i.e. respondent no.1. The Will in question is duly registered one.

3. The appellants had filed Civil Misc. Application No.70 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Court, Junagadh. Learned Trial Court had framed eight issues for consideration. Out of which, following issues are relevant and material -

(i) Whether the applicants prove the execution of Will by the deceased?;

(ii) Whether deceased Samju Ragha v Umratia was in sound physical and mental condition when the Will was executed?

As to the other issues viz. (iv) Whether the properties described in the schedule annexed to the application are self-acquired property or not?;

(v) Whether the applicant no.2 is a legally wedded wife and applicant no.1 is legitimate child of deceased Samju Raghav or not? And (vii) Whether it is proved or not that the opponent is divorced wife of the deceased Samju Raghav? -are not answered by the learned trial Court, holding that it is not for the probate Court to give answer to these questions.

4. Considering all these issues simultaneously in fairly detailed order, the learned Trial Court has concluded that application deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The main and relevant findings of the learned trial Court are as under:-

(i) That the deceased Samjubhai was in fit state of mind and was capable to make Will-

is not in dispute.

(ii) In written statement at Exh.15, the opponent does not dispute about the physical and mental condition of the deceased to make Will nor the opponent contended any fraud, undue influence or coercion exercised on the deceased.

(iii) Whether the property in question can be bequeathed by executing Will and whether the deceased has any right to bequeath the said property is not for this Court to decided.

(iv) That the applicant has examined both attesting witnesses of the Will. Briefly oral evidence led by the party is discussed. The Court concludes that nothing material appears

from the cross-examination of the witnesses to dislodge the case of the applicant.

(v) Reading the evidence of the applicant and attesting witnesses together, no doubt whatsoever appears about the mental and physical condition of the deceased nor the opponent has raised any dispute in this regard in cross-examination of witnesses.

5. It appears from the record that the deceased Samju Raghav had gone to the office of Advocate to prepare Will. That the Will was prepared as per instructions of Samju Raghav. After preparation of Will, the same was read over to Samju Raghav. Two witnesses were called and they had duly attested the Will. Thereafter, the Will was dully registered. The Court, has then, considered the issue of delay i.e. producing the Will for probate after 15 years. The Court agrees with the submission of learned advocate for the applicant that Limitation Act is not applicable to the probate proceedings. But prod