1. This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Kamrup in PTS No. 1/1987 granting probate in favour of the principal respondent/plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Late Rukmini Devi executed a WILL in favour of the respondent, who is the grandson (son of the eldest son) of the testatrix Rukmini Devi, bequeathing the properties mentioned in the WILL. The respondent filed a petition for grant of probate in respect of the said WILL. One Chautmal Jalan (since deceased) predecessor of the appellants, raised objection against granting of probate, alleging that the WILL in question was not executed by Rukmini Devi and the same was also not duly attested as required by law and that the WILL was a fraudulent one as Rukmini Devi was seriously ill and was not physically and mentally fit to execute the WILL. Further contention of the objector was that the property bequeathed did not belong to the testatrix. Contention being raised, the probate case was registered as Title Suit and proceeded accordingly. On death of Chautmal Jalan, his legal heirs, the present appellants were brought on record. Learned Addl. District Judge on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the WILL was executed properly by testatrix?

(ii) Whether the probate should be granted as prayed for by the appellant? and

(iii) Reliefs if any.

3. The plaintiff/respondent examined four witnesses, including himself. The appellant/defendant also examined one witness. Upon hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Addl. District Judge granted probate of the WILL in favour of the respondent.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Addl. District Judge, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. Also perused the records of the Probate (T) Suit.

6. In the first limb of his argument, Sri O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted, that the appellant filed a petition before the Trial Court, praying for leave to adduce documentary evidence being a certificate issued by the doctor, but the learned Trial Court rejected the petition and therefore, learned counsel pressed for remanding the suit in order to enable the appellant to adduce the documentary evidence, with regard to illness of the testatrix, as the appellant was prejudiced for denial of the opportunity to produce and prove the medical certificate. Secondly, arguing on merit of the case, learned counsel contended that Rukmini Devi was not physically and mentally fit to execute the WILL and that there were suspicious circumstances in making the WILL, which the respondent could not dispel. Besides, proving that the WILL was properly executed, the respondent was also under obligation to dispel the suspicious circumstances in execution of the WILL, submitted Mr. Bhati. According to the learned counsel, the beneficiary of the WILL took major initiative in execution of the WILL, which created a suspicious circumstances and the respondent failed to dispel such suspicion. Further contention of the learned counsel is that the testatrix did not have title over the property involved in the WILL, and on that count also, the learned Trial Court ought to have refused to grant the probate. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following authorities:

(i) Gulam Qadir vs. Special Tribunal and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 33

(ii) Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs vs. Vinod Kumar and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 387

7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on the decisions in Durlabh Chandra Bhattacharjee vs. Atul Barthakur, 2005 (4) GLT 306; Ghulam Qadir vs. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33; Keshab Prasad Shah vs. Ram Pujan Shah, 2001 (3) GLT 436; Daul