Important Point – It is well settled that the probate proceedings are confined to a declaration regarding the last Will of the testator and that the testator was in valid disposing state of mind.

ARUN BHANSALI, J.

1. This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘the Act’) was filed by the appellant Surja Das aggrieved against the order dated 10.08.1999 passed by the District Judge, Merta, whereby application filed by the respondent Bhanwarlal under Section 276 of the Act has been accepted and based on the Will dated 03.04.1984 executed by Ram Jeewan Das ‘letter of administration’ has been ordered to be issued in his favour.

2. During the pendency of the appeal Surja Das died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

3. The respondent filed petition for granting ‘letter of administration’ with the averments that a temple of Narsinghji is situated in Ward No. 4 of Kuchaman City, whose Mahant and Pujari was Ram Jeewan Das; since 1978, the applicant was assisting Ram Jeewan Das in worshiping etc. Ram Jeewan Das died on 01.02.1985 at Village Panchwa; late Ram Jeewan Das was satisfied with his service and, therefore, he executed a Will qua the temple on 03.04.1984 and got it registered. It was indicated that Surja Das, respondent in the petition became annoyed by the Will and filed a suit for cancellation of the Will, which is still pending; Ram Jeewan Das during his life time filed application for registration of the Trust with the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, Bikaner, wherein also Surja Das objected. It was claimed that Will has been legally executed and is the last Will of the deceased, based on the Will, the applicant has become Pujari and Manager of the temple, however, as several litigations have been filed pertaining to the Will, the application seeking grant of ‘letter of administration’ is being filed. It was prayed that ‘letter of administration’ be issued.

4. The petition was resisted by Surja Das. It was, inter-alia, contended that though the temple of Narsinghji does exist, however, deceased Ram Jeewan Das was not its Mahant and Pujari, the applicant Bhanwarlal did not either in year 1978 or any point of time assisted in the worship at the temple; the date of death of Ram Jeewan Das was accepted. It was alleged that the applicant conspired to got execute the Will dated 03.04.1984, the Will could not have been legally executed, Ram Jeewan Das was not Mahant and Pujari of the temple and he had no right to execute the Will. It was admitted that the suit filed by the respondent seeking cancellation of Will was pending. It was also alleged that Ram Jeewan Das despite having no right, had approached the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, which was opposed by him. It was submitted that the applicant was not entitled to any relief.

5. In additional pleas, it was submitted that temple of Narsinghji was being looked after by the respondent for over five generations, the temple was public religious property and the offerings are used for Bhog of Thankurji and repairs of temple; Patta of temple was executed by Jagirdar in Samvat 1932, which was executed in favour of late Bhagwan Das Pujari; whereafter, family tree was given and it was claimed that the respondent was the sole Trustee and Manager of the temple and was getting annuity from Devsthan Department. It was claimed that as respondent became weak, he employed Ram Jeewan Das, his brother-in-law as servant in the temple, however, Ram Jeewan Das claiming himself to be Mahant and Pujari, executed Will pertaining to the temple when in fact he was only a servant. It was claimed that the temple was under another temple of Bihariji, whose Mahant was Tansukh Das, who has taken the respondent as his Chela and, therefore, only he has a right to the temple.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. On behalf of the applicant, five witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited and on behalf of the respondent, six witnesses were examined and seven documents were produced.

7. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Will was valid that that applicant therein was e