The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the genuineness of a will and the need to establish the testator's sound mind and physical capacity at the time of execution.

ORDER :

1. This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the applicant-appellant challenging the judgment whereby the Letter of Administration Case No. 6 of 2006 filed under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act was dismissed by the District Judge III, Dhanbad.

2. The appellant herein filed an application under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, praying for grant of letter of administration in respect of estate of deceased Rabi Mahato.

3. It is the case of the applicant-appellant that Rabi Mahato, a Hindu male died on 15.09.2005 within the jurisdiction of the Court at Dhanbad. It is his case that the deceased was of sound health and perfect state of mind while executing his last will and testament on 02.09.2005. He has bequeathed his estate and effects thereto in favour of the applicant-appellant, as the sole executor. Will was registered on 02.09.2005 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Dhanbad. The applicant claimed that the Will was duly executed in presence of the attesting witnesses and one of the attesting witnesses, Bhim Mahato had sworn an affidavit along with the said Will. Applicant claimed that the deceased left behind his wife and two brothers, appellant being one of them. The appellant stated that by virtue of the said Will, the property was devolved upon him. Valuation was also mentioned.

4. After filing of the said case, opposite parties were noticed and a show cause was filed by them. They claimed that the will is forged, created and manufactured document as applicant wanted to usurp the entire property left by Rabi Mahato. It is their contention that preparation of Will about 10-15 days prior to the death of the testator, that too when the testator was not in his senses, suggests the mala-fide intention and the fact that the Will was not voluntary. It is their case that Rabi Mahato fell critically ill and his nerves and brain were affected and he had become paralytic and was not even in a position to operate a bank account. The family, thus, approached the bank where Rabi Mahato was having an account as he was an employee of Steel Authority of India Limited, for withdrawal of his money, but the Bank returned the instrument. Aggrieved by the said action of the bank, a complaint case was filed before the Consumer Forum bearing Consumer Complaint No. 251 of 2005 by the applicant-appellant on behalf of Rabi Mahato. Sahadeo Mahato being the eldest male member, was looking after and managing the affair of the family as Rabi Mahato was seriously ill and was near a vegetative state. It is the case of the opposite parties that said Sahadeo Mahato (appellant) obtained some LTI of Rabi Mahato for making correspondence with the bank and pursuing the case before the Consumer Forum. It is their case that on 02.09.2005, the applicant stated that Rabi Mahato’s presence is necessary before the Consumer Court to show that Rabi Mahato is alive and near vegetative state. Opposite parties did not create any doubt on the said intention of the applicant-appellant. After the death of Rabi Mahato, they could came to know about the case when a Succession Case No. 53 of 2006 was filed, impleading the applicant-appellant wherein this applicant-appellant for the first time disclosed about the Will. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the Will is fabricated as the deceased was not in a state to execute the same. Further, as per them, in the Will no reasons have been assigned as to why these opposite parties were excluded. It is their case that there are several suspicious circumstances, which will render the Will invalid.

5. On the basis of the said pleadings, issues were framed by the Court below, which are as follows:

1. Whether or not present probate case maintainable?

2. Whether the WILL brought on record was executed by testator Rabi Mahato and if so, whether or not same is valid and lawful WILL?

3. Whether or not there is any suspicious circumstance surrounding execution of WILL?

4. Whether