The execution of a Will is invalid if surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including the testator's compromised mental state and discrepancies in the document.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellants are challenging the judgment dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.8870 of 2018 (arising out of Probate Misc. Case No.02 of 2010), whereby their application for probate was dismissed.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Appellants are the daughters-in-law of Late Jayakrishna Dash. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are his sons, and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are his daughters.

(ii) According to the Appellants, although Late Jayakrishna Dash was admitted to hospital on 21.02.2008, he remained in sound physical and mental health and, acting of his own volition, executed a registered Will bearing Registration No. 25 dated 23.02.2008, bequeathing his self-acquired properties to them out of love and affection.

(iii) Late Jayakrishna Dash was discharged from the hospital on 26.02.2008 and passed away on 31.01.2009.

(iv) Thereafter, the Appellants filed a probate petition bearing Test (Probate) Misc. Case No. 2 of 2010 before the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on 11.01.2010. Upon contest, the matter was renumbered as C.S. No. 8870 of 2015 and transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar.

(v) Respondent No. 5 appeared and opposed the grant of probate, alleging that the Will was forged and fabricated and not executed by Late Jayakrishna Dash.

(vi) The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the probate case on the grounds that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances and that the testator lacked the competence to execute the Will in respect of the scheduled properties.

(vii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the Appellants have approached this Court challenging the same and seeking that it be set aside.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Appellants contended that Late Jayakrishna Dash, while in sound physical and mental health and in possession of the scheduled properties, voluntarily executed and registered a Will dated 23.02.2008, bequeathing the same in their favour.

(ii) The Appellants contended that Jayakrishna Dash was the recorded owner of the properties mentioned in the Schedule. The property under Khata No. 2024 of Mouza Goutam Nagar, Unit No. 28, Bhubaneswar, was a leasehold on which he had constructed a residential house and resided until his death. The property under Khata No. 1125/4 of Mouza Cuttack Sahar, Unit No. 15, Choudhury Bazaar, stood recorded jointly in his name pursuant to a judgment and decree in T.S. No. 222 of 1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack. He had been allotted a share therein and remained in possession until his demise.

(iii) The Appellants contended that Jayakrishna Dash had also acquired additional properties during his lifetime, including land under Khata No. 583 of Mouza Bhubaneswar Sahar, Unit No. 31, Laxmisagar 2; House No. L-11 in Kapila Prasad under the staff housing scheme and a portion of land measuring 10 ft (cid:215) 20 ft in Plot No. 825 of Mouza Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar, which, although recorded in the name of his wife, Ketaki Devi, had been purchased out of his own income.

(iv) The Appellants contended that the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe did not depose that Late Jayakrishna Dash was men