Hon'ble SINGH, J.—This appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been filed against the judgment dated 03.06.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Alwar in Civil Misc. Application No.186/1982 allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of succession certificate in respect of the property left behind by the deceased Bhagwan Sahai.

The facts, in brief, are that the appellant and the respondent belong to the same family. With a view to understand their relationship, the following pedigree may be perused:-

Bhagwan Sahai(Died issueless) Birdhi Chand

Shiv Narain| Chand Behari| Rokad Chand(Appellant)

Beni Prasad Wife Rajeshwari (Respondent)

3. The property was that of the deceased Bhagwan Sahai who died on 15.11.1982. Bhagwan Sahai never married and he left behind a registered Will dated 11.11.1982 by which he bequeathed his entire property both movable and immovable, as mentioned in the said Will executed on 11.11.1982, in favour of the respondent Rajeshwari Devi wife of Shri Chand Behari @ Ram Behari.

4. The deceased had a post office savings account with an amount of Rs.6,000/- which was a time deposit account and the dispute centers around the money lying in the said account. The respondent Rajeshwari Devi filed an application for the grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,000/- claiming the same on the basis of the registered Will dated 11.11.1982, executed by the deceased Bhagwan Sahai in her favour.

5. The respondent contested the said application interalia denying the execution of the Will and that the amount lying in the post office savings account was in the joint account of the deceased as well as the appellant Rokad Chand wherein it was provided that the amount may be withdrawn by either of them or survivor. On the basis of the above, it was contended that the appellant alone was entitled to recover the said amount. It may also be stated here that the execution of the Will was denied and it was stated that the deceased had in fact executed a Will in favour of the appellant Rokad Chand in the year 1973 wherein the property was left by the deceased in favour of the appellant Rokad Chand.

6. The learned District Judge framed four issues which are reproduced as under:-

<span class=”Hfont”> ^^1- D;k e`rd Hkxokulgk; us fn- 11-11-82 dks izkFkhZ;k Jherh jkts'ojh nsoh ds i{k esa olh;r lEikfnr djk iathc) djk;h\

2- D;k e`rd Hkxokulgk; }kjk izrkix<+ iksLV vkWfQl esa 6000@& :- dh jkf'k tek djkbZ\

3- D;k mä olh;r ukek ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ;k e`rd Hkxokulgk; }kjk izrkix<+ iksLV vkWfQl esa tek djk;s 6000@& :i;s dh jkf'k ds fy, mÙkjkf/kdkj izek.k i= ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\

4- D;k e`rd Hkxokulgk; us vizkFkhZ jksdM+pan ds i{k esa fnukad 11-10-73 dks olh;rukek lEikfnr fd;k FkkA ;fn gkW rks mldk D;k izHkko gS\

5- lgk;rk\**

7. The learned District Judge decided all the issues in favour of the respondent Smt.Rajeshwari Devi who was the applicant and ordered that the succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 may be issued and held that she is the lawful successor of the deceased and she is entitled to the amount lying in the savings account No.156721 in the post office at Pratapgarh, District Alwar. It was also held under Issue No.4 that the execution of the Will dated 11.10.1973 in favour of the appellant is not proved.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has in the first instance submitted that the Will is not a genuine one as it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. At the same time, it has been submitted that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the Will has been proved while the same was not proved by producing any of the attesting witnesses, as required by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

9. It was further submitted that the learned District