The main legal point established is the significance of proper attestation of a will as per the Indian Succession Act and the mode of proof under the Evidence Act, particularly emphasizing the requirements of Section 69 for proving the attestation of a will by the required witnesses.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This appeal has arisen out of judgment and decree, dated 17.9.1994, passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon, in Title Suit No. 04 of 1992, whereby the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on contest with costs.

2. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiff appellants reads as follows :

On 18.2.1931, Ambikeswar Phukan, a mauzadar, executed a will (Ext. 2) bequeathing his properties mentioned in the will to Smt. Labanya Prava Gogol, who was also named as executor of the will. The testator, namely, Ambikeswar Phukan died as far back as on 22.10.1933. The executor, namely, Smt. Labanya Prava Gogoi filed an application seeking probate of the will as late as on 30.7.73, i.e., after 40 years of the death of the testator. This application was, in course of time, registered as Misc. (Probate) Case No. 10/1973. This application was renumbered as T.S. 10/73 and the same was contested by the respondents. During pendency of the said suit, the executor aforementioned died. The suit, was accordingly dismissed by order, dated 25.7.1978. Long 13 years thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, namely, Suresh Gogoi, who was the only heir of deceased Smt. Labanya Prava Gogoi aforementioned, filed another application, on 11.4.1991, seeking letter of administration in respect of the said will. This application came to be numbered as Misc. LA Case No. 70/91 and the same was, latter on, renumbered as T.S. 04/1992 and contested by the present respondents. The applicant, Suresh Gogoi, claimed that he, being the only heir of the said executor and beneficiary of the will, is entitled to letter of administration as sought for by him.

3. The respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement, wherein it was contended, inter-alia, that there was no cause of action for the suit, the suit was not maintainable, the suit was time barred and also barred by res judicata, the case of the respondents being, in brief, thus : Ext. 2 was never executed by the alleged testator, Ambikeswar Phukan, and that the said will was a forged document. Deceased Smt. Labanya Prava Gogoi aforementioned was not the daughter of the said testator and she could not have been legatee of his will.

4. Following issues were framed in the suit for determination :-

1. Is there any cause of action for the suit ?

2. Is the suit maintainable ?

3. Whether the suit is time barred ?

4. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata ?

5. Whether the suit is barred by Order 22, Rule 9(1) CPC ?

6. Whether writings annexed to the petition is the last will and testament of Ambikeswar Phukan as claimed by the plaintiff ?

7. Whether Smt. Labanya Prava Gogoi was a daughter of late Ambikeswar Phukan and whether Ambikeswar Phukan appointed her as executor and legatee of his will ?

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of letters of Administration as prayed for ?

5. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined as many as five witnesses. The defendants-respondents also adduced evidence by examining one witness.

6. Upon hearing, learned trial Court answered all the issues except the issue Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff. As a result thereof, the suit was dismissed and the impugned decree followed.

7. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned judgment and decree. I have heard Mr. KK Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants and Mr. T.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondents.

8. It has been submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that the learned trial Court misread and misconstrued the relevant pieces of the evidence on record inasmuch as the evidence on record convincingly proved that the will, in question, was executed by Ambikeswar Phukan, the said will having been written by Bhadraswar Das (since deceased) and the same having been signed by two attesting witnesses, namely, Harendra Nath Burargohain (since deceased) and Baputi Sharma (since deceased). It is also submitted