JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal by the applicant under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, challenging the judgment dated 20th July, 2015 passed by the District Judge X, Hazaribagh in Probate Case No.5 of 2007, whereby he has dismissed the probate application filed by the applicant.

2. One Ram Kumar Singh filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act praying for grant of probate of the WILL dated 29.03.1995, executed by Most. Mutari, wife of Krishna Ganjhu in favour of the applicant-appellant. It is the case of the applicant that Most. Mutari was being looked after by the applicant, after the death of her husband, Krishna Ganjhu, as the couple did not have any child and there was no one in the family. The widow, thus, executed a WILL, bequeathing all the properties mentioned therein, in favour of the applicant. The WILL was unregistered. Most. Mutari died on 20.12.2006 and as there was no executor, the applicant filed an application for grant of probate.

3. The State was impleaded as respondent in the application.

4. The Court of the District Judge framed four issues, which were as follows: -

(1) Is the application maintainable?

(2) Whether the will was executed by Most. Mutari on 29.3.1995 bequeathing all her movable properties including lands under Khata no. 4,37,49 and 66 of the village Urba thana no.169, P.S. Ramgarh, District Hazaribag in schedule ‘A’ of the application is valid?

(3) Is the properties in Schedule ‘A’ properly valued?

(4) Whether the applicant is entitled for grant of probate of the will or letters of administration in respect of the property detailed under Schedule ‘A’ of the application?

5. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant. P.W.1 was the applicant himself, P.W.2 was Narayan Singh, P.W.3 Ram Lagan Singh and P.W.4 was Akchaya Kumar Bakshi. Unregistered WILL was also marked as Exhibit 1.

6. Considering the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court held that the WILL was not properly executed and the said document is not trust-worthy and is doubtful. Court also doubted the testimony of the witnesses, thus, concluded that the credibility of the witnesses are also doubtful. The Court, thus, dismissed the application filed by the applicant.

7. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the application filed by the applicant, the applicant-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no illegality in the WILL and the WILL cannot be doubted. He submitted that the WILL was executed in the year 1995, whereas the deceased died on 20.12.2006, i.e., after more than 11 years, which will justify the execution of the WILL. Since there were no legal heirs of the deceased and as the appellant was looking after the deceased, after the death of her husband, the deceased out of love and affection, had executed a WILL in his favour, thus, no fault can be found in such execution. As per him, one of the attesting witnesses and the scribe also deposed before the Court and they consistently deposed that it is the deceased, who came to the scribe and on her dictate the WILL was prepared, after that she had put her thumb impression. Witnesses categorically stated that they also put their signatures as attesting witnesses on the WILL, that being so, the findings of the Court below is absolutely erroneous. Another argument was forwarded that since the State did not file any written statement, they could not have contested the application and the Court should have accepted the averments made in the application. He argues that there is no mandate of law that the WILL should be registered and the Court below failed to consider that unregistered WILL also could be probated and thus, the findings of the Court that no effort was taken to get the WILL registered has got no legs to stand. He submitted that non-registration of the WILL cannot be a ground to conclude that the execution of the said document is doubtful.

9. I have heard counsel for the