JUDGMENT

RAGHUBIR DASH, J.

1. This appeal is in challenge of the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nayagarh in I.A. No. 117 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 203 of 2005 dismissing the appellant’s petition under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff-petitioner before the learned lower court. She filed the suit for declaration that under a will dated 8.4.2005 executed by late Debadutta Mohanty she is entitled to administer the plaint schedule properties in terms of the conditions embodied in the will and for permanent injunction restraining Defendant-O.P.No.1 from dealing with the plaint schedule property in any manner.

Undisputed facts are that D.1 and 2 who are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal are the widow and minor daughter, respectively, of deceased Debadutta Mohanty; that the disputed will has been executed in the district of Nayagarh, that plaint Schedule ‘A’ property is a piece of land situate in the district of Khurda, that plaint Schedule ‘B’ properties relate to L.I.C. policies in which the deceased widow is named as the nominee; that plaint Schedule ‘C’ properties relate to Fixed Deposits in S.B.I. which stand in joint accounts in the names of the deceased and his widow and that plaint Schedule ‘D’ properties are postal deposits (under Monthly Income Scheme) in the names of both the deceased and his widow.

3. The stand taken in the plaint, in nutshell, is that the plaint Schedule properties were acquired by the deceased from his own income. His widow had no contribution to the acquisition of such properties. The deceased was suffering from Anchylising Spondylitis. When his condition deteriorated gradually and he needed full time care from his wife, the latter deserted him on 20.10.2004 and left her matrimonial house taking her minor child (R.2) with her to take shelter in her parents’ house at Choudwar. Being disgusted the deceased executed the will on 8.4.2005 appointing the appellant, his own sister, as the administrator of his assets completely disentitling his widow from inheriting the plaint Schedule properties with further stipulation made in the Will that in case the minor child comes and stays with the deceased’s parental family she will get the entire properties, otherwise, the appellant shall spend the entire property for any social cause. So far probating of the will is concerned, the plaintiff has taken the stand that since Nayagarh is an ex-state, no probate/letter of administration is necessary.

4. The appellant has filed a petition for temporary injunction on the ground that unless Defendant-O.P.No.1 is restrained from dealing with the plaint Schedule properties, there is every chance of multiplicity of litigation and the last will of the deceased will remain unfulfilled.

5. R.1 and 2 as Defendants-O.Ps. before the learned lower court take the stand that since plaint Schedule ‘A’ immovable property is situate within the local jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar, in the district of Khurda, the will is required to be probated even though it has been executed within the district of Nayagarh and for that the suit itself is not maintainable. Further contention is that the so called will is a forged document created to grab the deceased’s property and to deprive his widow and minor child from enjoying the same.

Another plea taken by the respondents is that at the time of marriage of R.1 with the deceased in the year 1999 her father had gifted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased which the deceased had been investing from time to time in different schemes and lastly investment was made by way of deposits in the S.B.I. as well as the Post Office and the accounts related to such investments are reflected in the plaint Schedule ‘C’ and ‘D.’ Further plea taken by these respondents is that after death of the deceased the appellant and her other relations tortured the deceased’s widow for which she had to leave her matrimonial home with her child to take sh