JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Court’s act, 2005 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District in Probate Case No. 2/2019.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell is that the suit property initially belonged to Brig. Sapliana which had apportioned of the landed property i.e. LSC 390/1975 in favour of his son-in-law namely V.L. Zauva thereafter, Mr. V.L. Zauva had gifted a portion of the land in favour of his daughter namely H. Lalsangzuali and accordingly LSC No. 1301/1994 was registered in the name of Mrs. H. Lalsangzuali later, the LSC No. 1301/1994 was mutated in the name of her husband Mr. R. Chawngkhuma and Mrs. H. Lalsangzuali had also avail loan, being a government servant, wherein Mr. R. Chawngkhuma and Mrs. H. Lalsangzuali managed to a construct a 6 (six) storeys building.

4. On the demised of Mrs. H. Lalsangzuali, Mr. R. Chawngkhuma had executed the impugned Will dated 30.04.2018 which was duly probated by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl on 11.03.2019. The respondent being the grandson of the deceased Mr. R. Chawngkhuma had approached the trial Court for probate of the will, which was probated on 11.03.2019 and consequently Heirship Certificate No. 514 of 2019 was issued to the instant respondent.

5. Aggrieved by this the appellant has approached this Court in the instant RFA.

6. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Order dated 11.03.2019 and the consequent Heirship Certificate No. 514 of 2019 are liable to be set aside on the ground that no notice was issued to the appellant at the time when the said Will dated 11.03.2019 was said to be probated by the learned Lower Court. She submits that the appellant is also staying in one of the floors of the 6 (six) storied building built by the deceased Mr. R. Chawngkhuma and Mrs. H. Lalsangzuali. She being the daughter of Mrs. H. Lalsangzuali should have been informed and given notice with regards to the Will alleged to be executed by Mr. R. Chawngkhuma.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the property mentioned in the Will i.e. LSC No. 1301/1994 is an ancestral property which had belonged to the great grandparents of the appellant and the original owners of the Will had specifically mentioned that this ancestral property should not be owned by any outsider. That the instant respondent had no blood relationship with the original owners of the property.

8. The learned counsel further submits that the genuineness of the alleged Will is doubtful since the late Mr. R. Chawngkhuma was suffering from Alzeimer at the time when they said to have executed the Will and besides that he was a literate person and therefore could have signed his name, instead of giving his thumb impression on the said Will. She further submitted that even though the said LSC No. 1301/1994 was in the name of late R. Chawngkhuma simply having title with regards to the land does not grant or give him ownership on mutation of land. A person’s name is in a Revenue record is only in order to pay the Land Revenue in question. In support of her submissions she has cited in the case of Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 223 and in the case of Suraj Bhan and Others vs. Financial Commissioner and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 186.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed that she may be allowed to contest the probate of the Will since she is an interested party and has legitimate right over the property which had originally belonged to her mother Mrs. H. Lalsangzuali. She has prayed that this matter may be remanded back to the trial court so that she may be granted an opportunity to be heard in the matter. On this poi