I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This appeal, made under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, puts to challenge the judgment and order, dated 15.9.2005, passed, in Title Suit (Probate) No. 6 of 2003, whereby the learned Additional (Ad hoc) District Judge, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, while holding the Respondent herein entitled to receive probate in respect of the Will left by the testator, Manik Lal Dhar, directed issuance of a probate in her favour.

2. I have heard Mr. G.C. Phukan, learned Counsel for the Appellants, and Mr. N.C. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The Respondent herein, namely, Chinu Rani Dhar, filed an application, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking grant of a probate in respect of the Will claimed to have been executed by Maniklal Dhar in her favour, her case being, in brief, thus: Late Manik Lal Dhar was a Railway employee. He had three major sons, who are the Appellants herein, from his first wife, Late Sandhya Rani Dhar, who pre-de-ceased Manik Lal Dhar. In course of time, Late Manik Lal Dhar married the Respondent Chinu Rani Dhar. At the time of his death on 4.01.2002, Late Manik Lal Dhar left behind not only Chinu Rani Dhar, but also two daughters and a son out of his conjugal relationship with Chinu Rani Dhar. Late Manik Lal Dhar had executed a Will on 28.6.1999, i.e. about 2 years before his death. The said Will was registered, whereby he bequeathed all his properties including his pension, gratuity, GPF, other benefits and the money, lying deposited in his name, in favour of Chinu Rani Dhar. The Will did not mention any immovable property having been left by Late Manik Lal Dhar in favour of the Respondent, Chinu Rani Dhar. After the death of the testator, Manik Lal Dhar, the Respondent herein, i.e. Chinu Rani Dhar, filed an application, as indicated above, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which came to be registered as Misc. (Probate) Case No. 189/2002. After issuance of notice, the present Appellants, who are sons of the testator, Manik Lal Dhar, from his wife, Late Sandhya Rani Dhar, appeared in the said proceeding and filed their objection challenging the validity of the Will on the ground that the said Will was a forged one. This contested proceeding of probate came to be, then, registered as Title Suit (Probate) No. 6 of 2003.

4. While resisting the prayer for grant of probate, the case of the Appellants herein, was, briefly stated, as under: The testator, Late Manik Lal Dhar, was addicted to alcohol and in intoxicated state of mind, he had been treating, during the last part of his life, his wife, Sandhya Rani Dhar, (who, eventually, pre-deceased Manik Lal Dhar) and the Appellants herein with cruelty, whereupon Sandhya Rani Dhar left Manik Lal Dhar's house and claimed maintenance from Manik Lal Dhar. Manik Lal Dhar never recognised Chinu Rani Dhar as his wife and this is evident from the fact that in the maintenance proceeding, which Sandhya Rani Dhar had instituted, under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure against Manik Lal Dhar giving rise to M.R. Case No. 52/1988, Manik Lal Dhar stated that Chinu Rani was his maid servant. The Will, which Chinu Rani Dhar relies upon, is a forged will. It was also contended, in their written statement, by the present Appellants, that at the time of executing the Will, Manik Lal Dhar was not in good condition of health and mind inasmuch as he had lost his mental balance due to his being alcoholic. The alleged Will was manufactured with the help of the attesting witnesses at the time of Manik Lal Dhar's death. Since neither Sandhya Rani Dhar nor her three sons, namely, the present Appellants, had been living with Manik Lal Dhar in the latter's official quarter belonging to the Railways and it was Chinu Rani Dhar, who had been living, in the said official quarter of Manik Lal Dhar, along with her children claiming to be the wife of Manik Lal Dhar, Chinu Rani Dhar continued to re