JUDGMENT :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. The appellant as plaintiff calls in question the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2012 and 9.2.2012 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karanjia in C.S. No. 8 of 2010 in this appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 8 of 2010 for declaration of title in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 1.83 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 571 under Khata No. 96/19 of Mouza Handipuhan in the district of Mayurbhanj (for short, the suit land) on the basis of a will executed by one Rambhabati Patel.

3. The plaint story in brief is that the suit property was acquired by one Rambhabati Patel, who is grandmother of the plaintiff-appellant. Subsequently, the suit property was recorded in the name of said Rambhabati in the ROR published in the year 1985 (Ext-3). Said Rambhabati Patel had executed a plain paper will (Ext.2) in favour of the plaintiff on 11.6.2000 voluntarily bequeathing the suit land in favour of the legatee (plaintiff) and put him in possession of the suit property. Rambhabati Patel breathed her last on 3.12.2000 leaving behind three sons and one daughter, who are defendants/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and defendant/respondent no. 7 respectively. Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are successors-in-interest of predeceased son of said Rambhabati, namely, Kamaleshwar Patel. Plaintiff is the son of defendant no. 1, namely, Kishore Chandra Patel. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit will is in respect of the properties situated in the district of Mayurbhanj and no probate under the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the Act) is required under law in the district of Mayurbhanj to establish the right of legatee in respect of the suit land. The defendants did not cooperate to record the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the will after death of said Rambhabati Patel for which the suit was filed for the aforesaid relief.

4. The defendants filed their written statement admitting the execution of the will, but denied the allegation of non-cooperation on their part for recording the suit land in the name of the plaintiff on the basis of the will. On the other hand, they submitted that the plaintiff being the lawful owner of the "A" schedule property is entitled to mutate his name and only due to pre-occupation and time constraints of the defendants, the mutation could not be carried out in time. Hence, they prayed for disposal of the suit in the light of Order 6 Rule 12, CPC.

5. Taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed as many as four issues. The main issues for consideration before the learned trial Court were issue Nos. 2 and 3, which are reproduced herein below.

2. Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action to bring this suit in this Court?

3. Whether the right, title and interest of the suit property can be declared in favour of the plaintiff?

6. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-2, Scribe of the will as PW-1 and exhibited the documents, like the will as Ext. 1, Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of said Rambhabati Patel as Ext.2 and Ext.3, the ROR of the year 1985. The defendants, on the other hand, neither examined any witness nor produced any document in support of their case.

7. On consideration of the pleadings and materials available on record, learned Civil Judge came to a categorical finding that the will, i.e. Ext-1 was validly executed in favour of the plaintiff by the testator of the will, namely, late Rambhabati Patel. Further, the learned Civil Judge held that late Rambhabati, the testator of the will, was the title-holder of the suit property at the time she bequeathed the same in favour of the plaintiff through testamentary disposition, i.e. Ext.1 But, at the same time, the learned Civil Judge held that declaration of title cannot be made in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of the will in view of the bar enumerated under Section 213 of the A