The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the wills under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the rights of the adopted son as the natural heir.

1. - This appeal is filed by appellant Mahaveer Prasad being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court dated 24.5.1997 whereby application of the appellant for grant of succession certificate under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act') was dismissed. According to the applicant, he was adopted by late Shri Kanhaiya Lal on 29.10.1962. A deed of adoption was also executed on 30.10.1962. In the deed of execution for adoption wife of late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Smt. Sohan Bai also signed. Shri Kanhaiya Lal died on 6.1.1992. He had left behind him wife, respondent No. 1 Smt. Sohan Bai, respondent No. 2 Smt. Kanta Devi daughter. who was represented by Smt. Sohan Bai, because of her being deaf and dumb. Smt. Sohan Bai had represented Kanta Devi, as natural guardian. Respondent No. 3 Shri Chhabi Lal is son of Amba Lal Jain, brother of late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Respondent No. 4 is Smt. Shankutala Bai d/o Shri Amba Lal Jain and w/o Satya Prakash being sister of Chhabi Lal. Respondents No. 5 and 6 are the grand daughters of late Shri Kanhaiya Lal being the daughters of Smt. Kanta Bai.

2. Applicant Mahaveer Prasad submitted that the deceased had executed a will on 15.11.1978 and in terms of this will, applicant was designed as the sole successor of the deceased. On the strength of such a will, the applicant had claimed that Oriental Bank of Commerce, a tenant in the house Jain Rashmi Bhawan pays rent to the tune of Rs.1,320/- p.m. Another tenant is Eastern Roadways, who pays a sum of Rs.440/- p.m. and Rs.6,660/- are lying in the Savings Banks Account of the deceased. Thus, an application was made that for the Savings Bank-account of the deceased. Thus, an application was made that for the Savings Bank Account and rent of Eastern Roadways, succession certificate be issued in favour of the applicant.

3. The application for issuance of succession certificate was supported by respondents No. 1 and 2 being wife and daughter of the deceased Shri Kanhaiya Lal. Respondent No. 3 Chhabi Lal and respondent No. 4 Shakuntala Bai had filed objections for grant of the succession certificate. They have not disputed the adoption but stated that the will dated 15.11.1978 is a fabrication. In fact, a will was executed by the deceased on 23.12.1974, which was the last will of the deceased and in terms of this will, the property was appropriated in terms of a map annexed with the will. In this map, property shown in green colour was assigned to Chhabi Lal, property shown in red colour was assigned to Shakuntala Bai. In terms of such assignment, the rent paid by Eastern Road-ways comes in the share of Chhabi Lal and Shakuntala Bai and they are entitled to share the rent paid by Eastern Roadways. It has been prayed by these objectors that the will being fabricated, proceedings should be taken in relation to this will under section 190 Cr.PC. Respondent No. 5 Smt. Vijay Laxmi has also said that the will dated 15.11.1978 is fabricated. She has also asserted that the will dated 23.12.1974 was the last will. She has said that in the will dated 23.12.1974. she also was assigned some part of the rent to be received from the Oriental Bank of Commerce because in that property, she also has been given a share. Respondent No. 6 Smt. Kanchan Devi has admitted that the applicant was adopted by the deceased but the last will of the deceased was executed on 23.12.1974 and in that will, she was assigned some part of the premises rented out of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, therefore, she is also entitled to receive share in that.

4. On the pleadings of the parties three issues were framed. Issue No. 2 was deleted on 10.2.1996. At the trial, witnesses were examined by parties to support their case. Documentary evidence was also tendered in evidence.

5. On behalf of the applicant, the appellant examined himself as AW-1, Mr. P.S. Mamlik AW2, Mohan Lal AW3, and Mangi Lal AW4. In defence, the defendants have examined DW 1 Achyut as expert, NAW2 Smt. Sh