The applicable law for probate applications is determined by the law in force at the time of filing, not the law at the time of the testator's death.

JUDGMENT :

(MARLI VANKUNG, J.)

Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Court, 1908 against the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl in Probate Case No. 8 of 2015.

3. The case of the appellant is that the learned Trial Court has erred in not probating the ‘Will’ executed on 28.10.2018, left by her late mother Smt. Lallawmi and for dismissing the same on the grounds that the said ‘Will’ was not maintainable for want of compliance with Sections 9 & 17(e) of The Mizo District (Inheritance of Property) Act, 1956, whereas the relevant Act applicable is The Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014.

4. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the appellant is one of the legatee of the ‘Will’ executed on 28.10.2012 said to be left behind by her mother Smt. Lallawmi (L), who died on 03.05.2013, in respect of LSC No. 312/1973 located at Venghlui, Aizawl, Mizoram. In the said ‘Will’, the deceased Smt. Lallawmi(L) had bequeathed her immovable properties to her sons and daughter, being the legal heir of the property covered by the said LSC No. 312 of 1973 by virtue of an Heirship Certificate dated 28.02.2003 issued in her favour. Earlier, the appellant had filed an application for the probate of the ‘Will’ which was registered as Probate case No. 54 of 2014 and on the strength of the said probated ‘Will’, an Heirship Certificate in respect of the said LSC No. 312 of 1973 was issued in favour of the children of Smt. Lallawmi (L) namely, Shri. Laltanpuia (R1), Shri. Lalnuntluanga (R2), Shri. Lalropuia (R3), Shri. Chawngliankima and the appellant, Smt. Lalhlimpuii. However, a review application was filed before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl by the respondents in RFA No. 22 of 2014 wherein, the order probating the ‘Will’ executed on 28.10.2012 was cancelled and set aside with liberty to file a fresh application for the Probate of the ‘Will’. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application registered as Probate Case No. 54 of 2014, which was withdrawn by the appellant due to some formal defect. Thereafter, the appellant filed another application, praying for the Probate of the ‘Will’ executed on 28.10.2012 which was registered as Probate Case No. 8 of 2015 on 31.07.2015. The present respondents contested the application by filing their written statements, stating that the deceased Smt. Lallawmi (L) did not have any right to execute the ‘Will’ over the property of the deceased C. Thangliana covered under LSC No. 312 of 1973 since the said Heirship Certificate issued in her favour in respect of the LSC No. 312 of 1973 was not executed and was still in the name of C. Thangliana (L). They also denied the authenticity of the signature of Smt. Lallawmi (L) in the said ‘Will’ and also questioned the soundness of the mind of Smt. Lallawmi (L) and her capacity of exercising her free will to execute the said ‘Will’.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style?

ii) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the present application for probate?

iii) Whether the deceased had any authority over the property covered by the LSC No.312 of 1973 which belonged to C.Thangliana (L)?

iv) Whether the signature found in the alleged ‘Will’ belongs to Lallawmi?

v) Whether the deceased Lallawmi was fully possessed of her clear conscience and capable of exercising her free will on 28.10.2012?

vi) Whether the ‘Will’ was executed in conformity with the provisions of Mizo District Inheritance of Property Act, 1956?

vii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed? If so, to what extent?

6. During trial, the appellant/petitioner produced three witnesses includin