JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Mr. Saurabh Pradhan, learned counsel for all the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District in Probate Case No. 6/2016.

3. The appellants’ case is that the deceased, Mr. Hrengkhuaia was the father of the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and he had moved to stay with the appellant at Tawipui ‘S’ during the year 2013, wherein while he was staying with the appellant, he had executed the Will dated 05.10.2014 and thereafter died on 02.12.2014. On the death of Mr. Hrengkhuaia, the appellant/petitioner had approached the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei for probate of the Will dated 05.10.2014 said to be executed by their deceased father. In the Will Mr. Hrengkuaia bequeathed all his property to the person who looked after him and was with him at the time of his death (dawmhlumtu).

4. The respondents filed their counter claim, claiming that the alleged Will was fake and claimed that the deceased was having two LSCs at Lawngtlai, and he had executed a Will dated 20.04.2014 wherein one LSC was bequeathed to respondent No.1 who had built her house within the LSC and the other LSC was bequeathed to respondent No.2 and her daughter respondent No.3 who was living with the deceased Hrengkhuaia and looked after him. That the deceased Hrengkhuaia had only gone to visit the appellant at Tawipui ‘S’ in the month of November 2014, where he unfortunately passed away and was buried at Tawipui’S’ at the insistence of the appellant, as a guest (mikhual) and not as a residence of Tawipui ‘S’. He did not move to Tawipui ‘S’ to live with the appellant as claimed by her. That it was Respondent No.3, the granddaughter of Mr. Hrengkhuaia, who lived with him and looked after him.

5. From the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues-

i. whether the Will alleged to be executed by Hrengkhuaia on 05.10.2014 is forged and faked or fit for grant of probate?

ii. Whether the Will alleged to be executed by Hrengkhuaia on 20.04.2014 is the last one or not?

iii. Supposed the said Will of 05.10.2014 is the last Will whether Ms. Lalthlangliani respondent No.3 is ‘Dawmhlumtu’ of the testator Pu Hrengkhuaia ?

6. Both the parties then adduced their evidence. The appellant examined as many as 6 witnesses and the respondent examined as many as 7 witnesses. After considering the evidence adduced and on hearing both the parties, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2018, wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge, had dismissed the application for probate of the Will dated 05.10.2014 holding that there was discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the attesting witnesses and that the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that the evidence adduced are not corroborated well enough which in turn creates a lot of doubt in the mind of the Court. The learned trial court also held that the alleged Will dated 20.04.2014 cannot be probated since the original Will was not produced. Being highly aggrieved by the dismissal of the Will dated 05.10.2014, the appellant has approached this Court by way of a regular first appeal.

7. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge had erred in dismissing the application for probate of the Will on the grounds that the learned Trial Court did not fully appreciate the evidence adduced by the attesting plaintiff witnesses Nos. 1, 4, 5 and that the witnesses have all stated that they were present at the time when the deceased Hrengkhuaia had made his Will and they saw each other put their signatures on the Will as witnesses. That the deceased Hrengkhuaia did not suffer from any mental illness and the Will was not