The court emphasized the importance of proving the execution of a Will and held that discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence can lead to the rejection of an application for probate.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This is an appeal against rejection of an application for granting probate of a Will. The learned District Judge has rejected the application finding that the execution of the Will by the deceased was not proved. The learned District Judge has found that the Will Exhibit-1 was said to be executed on 3.8.1977 which was the date put on the Will in Type-written figures at two places, but the Stamp Paper was proved to have been purchased on 25.8.1977. I have perused the original Will. At the back of it the Stamp Vendor has put the date of selling the stamp in such a manner that the date can be read both as 3 and 25. The Stamp Vender was examined in the Court and from his Register it was proved that the Stamp was sold on 25.8.1977. This clearly raises a suspicion that the Will was prepared on a later date and reading 25.8.1977 to be 3.8.1977, 3.8.1977 was typed as the date on which the Will was executed in the Will. The main document in the case `Will' therefore becomes suspicions being executed on a stamp paper of a date later than the date of execution. I do not find anything wrong in the learned District Judge holding the Will to be a suspicions document.

3. The learned District Judge has also observed from the evidence that the Will was not produced or relied upon immediately after the death of the testator. It is said that the Will was lying with Basanti Devi one of the sisters of the Testator Kanhaiya Lal and she gave it to the appellant-Ramesh Chandra after a long lapse of time after the death of Testator. It does not look natural that the document like Will would be kept by the Sister herself and would not be immediately given to the beneficiary. In her statement as AW-2 Basanti Devi has stated that before his death Kanhaiya Lal had given a written script of the Will and asked her to get it typed. At that time the Testator kanhaiya Lal was on duty. She went to Abu Road and got this typed. Then Kanhaiya Lal signed it at Bhimana and Khima Shanker and Omkar had signed as attesting witnesses. She did not disclosed the name of the person who has typed that Will. Then she said that the person who sold her the stamp himself had typed. Kanhaiya Lal had told her to hand over the Will to Ramesh Chandra after his death. She had forgotten to hand over the Will to Ramesh Chandra and when the quarrel started and Ramesh Chandra came to her and asked for some material, if she had, she gave all the paper, with her to Ramesh Chandra.

4. As against this the Stamp Vender Mahendra Kumar Mardiya was examined as NAW-3 and he deposed that he had sold the Stamp to Basanti Devi on 25.8.1977. He categorically denied having typed the matter on the stamp paper. Thus the statement of Basanti Devi that the matter was typed by the Stamp Vender at his place has been contradicted. In this state of evidence if the learned District Judge did not find it safe to rely on the authenticity of the Will, no fault can be found with this decision. On consideration of the material of record I find that the learned District Judge has correctly found that the execution of the Will was not proved and the application for probate deserves to be rejected.

5. I find no force in this appeal. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Misc. appeal dismissed.

*******