The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of a Will must be free from suspicious circumstances, and the propounder of the Will has the burden to satisfactorily explain any such suspicions.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. The defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 1 of 2005 has filed this appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’) assailing the judgment dated 6.5.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack allowing an application under Sections 276 and 278 of the Act and thereby granting probate of the Will dated 14.6.1985 executed by one Gunanidhi Das in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein).

2. The plaintiff filed an application under Sections 276 and 278 of the Act (O.S. No. 1 of 2005) stating, inter-alia, that her father, namely, Gunanidhi Dash, had four daughters and two sons. The genealogy of the family given hereunder particulars the relationship and status of the parties to this case.

GENEALOGY

3. By virtue of the RSD No. 2917 dated 11.6.1949, her father Gunanidhi Das purchased the case land appertaining to Sabik Khata No. 1261, Plot No. 2956 corresponding to Hal Settlement Khata No. 1268 Plot No. 1914 to an extent of Ac. 0.045 decimals situated at Sagadiasahi, Ranihat (Panasahi), Dist. Cuttack (for short ‘the case land’) from one Madan Mallik and others. At that point of time, said Gunanidhi Dash along with his family was staying at the Government quarters in the campus of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. In the year, 1959, he constructed a Katcha house over the same. In the same year, the plaintiff was also given in marriage with one Ananda Chandra Dash, who was a Government servant. Due to the poor financial condition, said Gunanidhi could not give proper dowry to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage. Hence, he voluntarily gifted and dedeicated the suit land to the plaintiff on the marriage altar before sacred fire and the plaintiff accepted the same. Subsequently, said Gunanidhi Das delivered the possession of the suit property along with relevant documents to the plaintiff and since then, the plaintiff along with her husband were in physical possession of the same. The plaintiff and her husband also developed the suit land by incurring considerable expenses and resided there with their family members. Since 1966 the plaintiff and her family members were in exclusive physical possession of the suit property on payment of rent, holding tax and electricity dues etc. Though said Gunanidhi Das was working in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, but it was very difficult on his part to maintain the entire family for which the husband of the plaintiff and herself helped him in various ways by providing financial and physical assistance. They also helped Gunanidhi for solemnization of marriage of her (plaintiff's) brothers and sisters. The brothers of the plaintiff were staying in their respective workplaces and her sisters were staying in their respective in-laws house. Thus, the plaintiff and her husband were taking care of their parents. As there was no document in support of the gift of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and her husband requested said Gunanidhi to execute a Will in their favour and accordingly, Gunanidhi executed the Will in question in favour of the plaintiff in presence of the witnesses on 14.6.1985, which was his last Will. As per the terms and conditions of the Will, the plaintiff would be the exclusive owner of the suit property after the death of the wife (Sabitri Devi) of the testator, namely, Gunanidhi. Gunanidhi died on 10.6.1986 and Sabitri Devi died on 21.8.1983 at her native village Malabiharpur. One of the daughters of Gunanidhi, namely, Prativa and daughter-in-law, namely, Pratima filed a suit claiming right, title and interest over the suit property and tried to evict the plaintiff and her family members therefrom for which the plaintiff filed the present case for the aforesaid relief.

4. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed their objection refuting the contentions made in the probate petition. They contended that the case was not maintainable and the plai