The onus of proving a Will is on the propounder, and in the absence of suspicious circumstances, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator are sufficient to discharge the onus.

JUDGMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party and Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the respondent/probate petitioner.

2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Probate Case No. 8/2014 probating the Will dated 22.5.2013 said to have been executed by Sh. Thangvela (L) of Sairang, Aizawl District, Mizoram in favour of the respondent/probate petitioner. In the probate case, the instant appellant was the opposite party. For brevity and convenience, the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/probate petitioner will be hereafter referred to as the appellant and the respondent respectively.

3. The case of the respondent before the Probate Court was that he is the son of Sh. Thanmawia (L), who is the youngest amongst the three (3) brothers. His two (2) elder brothers are Sh. Hrangdawla (L) and Sh. Thangvela (L). On 22.05.2013, his elder brother Sh. Thangvela made a Will in his favour, naming him to be the successor to his landed property covered by LSC No.SR 6/1996. The Will was witnessed by Smt. Vanlalhumi and Sh. L. Thanga by appending their signatures and later on, Sh. Liandinga, the President of Sairang Village Council too appended his signature. Thus, by filing Probate Case No. 8/2014, the respondent sought probate of the saidWill.

4. The case of the appellant on the other hand, is that she is the daughter of Sh. Hrangdawla, the eldest amongst the three (3) brothers. That her father''s younger brother i.e., Sh. Thangvela who is therefore her uncle, died as a bachelor. During his lifetime, she took care of all his requirements as he lived alone. As such, he even kept her as his nominee to his Bank Account. When he fell ill and was admitted to the hospital, she took care of him and paid all his medical expenses. Sh. Thangvela on 09.09.2013 made a Will in her favour by giving her his landed property covered by LSC No. S.R. 6/1996. As such, the appellant against the probate case initiated by the respondent, filed her written statement and a counter claim, claiming the landed property of late Sh. Thangvela on the strength of the Will dated 09.09.2013 and also on the ground that she had taken care of him till his last breath.

5. With the above claim of the rival parties, the Court below framed the following two (2) issues -

wxyz

(i) Whether the Will dated 22.05.2013 executed by Sh. Thangvela (L) is a valid Will.

zyxw

wxyz

(ii) Whether the Will dated 09.09.2013 executed by Sh. Thangvela (L) is a valid Will.

zyxw

6. In support of his claim, the respondent examined three (3) witnesses including himself. He was examined as PW-1 while Smt. Vanlalhumi and Sh. L. Thanga were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively and they were the ones who witnessed the Will dated 22.05.2013 claimed to have been made by Sh. Thangvela (L). As for the appellant, she examined five (5) witnesses including herself. She was examined as OP Witness No. 1 while Smt. C.S. Thanchhingi, Smt. Ramnundangi, Sh. K. Laltanpuia and Sh. Vanlalruata were examined as OP Witness Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

7. After the rival parties examined their respective witnesses, the Trial Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2017 allowed the Probate Case of the respondent and dismissed the Counter Claim of the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court through the present appeal.

8. Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Will dated 22.05.2013 could not have been probated by the learned Trial Court inasmuch as an executor was not appointed by Sh. Thangvela as mandated under Sections 9 and 17(e) of the Mizo District (Inheritance of Property) Act, 1956 (the Act of 1956 in short). He further submits that although Sh. Thangvela (L) did not appoint an executor in the Will dated 09.09.2013 left by him in favour of the appellant as well but however, as the appellant lived with him