JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None has appeared for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in connection with Title Suit (Probate) No.02/2018 rejecting the prayer made by the appellants/petitioners for grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 02.04.2010 allegedly executed by the testatrix viz., Late Mandadhari Sukla Das.

3. The facts and circumstances of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner No.1, Smti. Mandira Paul had instituted Title Suit (Probate) No.02/2018 seeking probate in respect of Will dated 02.04.2010 executed by her deceased mother Mandadhari Sukla Das wherein she was appointed as the executor. In the aforesaid probate case, the Deity of “Sri Shiv Mandir” was impleaded as the petitioner No.2. The other two daughters of Late Mandadhari Sukla Das viz. Smti. Maya Rani Dev and Smti. Mangala Sukla Das were impleaded as OP Nos.1 and 2. According to the petitioners, by executing the Will dated 02.04.2010, the testatrix had bequeathed 3/4th of the profit generated from her property to be enjoyed by the petitioner No.1 and her two sisters viz. OP Nos.1 and 2 and the remaining 1/4th of such income was to devolve in the name of the petitioner No.2 (Deity). The petitioner No.1 has also claimed that she had been appointed as the executor of the Will, which was executed in presence of attesting witnesses.

4. The opposite parties appeared in the proceeding before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi and contested the probate suit by filing written objection inter-alia denying the execution of the Will. They have also alleged fraud on the part of the petitioner No.1by stating that the will had been created by the petitioner No. 1 in collusion with the two attesting witnesses.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned court below had framed four issues which are as follows :

“(i) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

(ii) Whether the Will in question was executed by the deceased Mandadhari Sukla Das and whether at the time of execution of the Will, she was in fit state of mind and health to execute the Will and whether the Will is a genuine one or not?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get probate of the Will in question?

(iv) To what other relief/reliefs, the petitioners are entitled?”

6. During trial, the petitioners had examined four witnesses including the petitioner No.1 as PW-1 and had also exhibited the death certificate of the testatrix as well as the original Will as Exts-1 and 2 respectively. On the other hand, the OPs had examined two witnesses in support of their claim. After considering the materials available on record, the learned District Judge had dismissed the probate title suit by inter-alia holding that there was no mention about the date of death of the testatrix in the petition and the seal affixed in the Will (Ext-2) also appeared to be tampered. The learned court below has also observed that it was nowhere mentioned that the Will in question was the last will of the deceased testatrix and the attesting witnesses also did not depose that the Will was executed in their presence. The trial court has further observed that the death certificate of the deceased, produced before the court by the petitioners, also appeared to be a tampered document and hence, a strong suspicion arises as to the due execution of the Will. By observing that the petitioners have failed to remove the suspicion in accordance with law, the suit was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

7. Referring to the materials available on record, Mrs. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that since the petitioners had produced the death certificate of the testatrix showing the date of her death as 25.01.2014, which is nearly four years after the execution of the Will and considering the fact that the scribe of the Will viz., PW-3 has a