( 1. ) APPELLANT/non-APPLICANT has filed this appeal against the order dated ; 8-3-2002, passed by III rd Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Probate Case no. 7/2000. Applicant filed an application for probate under Sections 218 and 254 of the Indian Succession Act. He pleaded that his uncle Chhotelal Sharma executed a "will" on 16-3-1995 and by the aforesaid "will" he had bequeathed admeasuring 1. 89 hectare of land situated at Village Kota, Pargana and District shivpuri in favour of the applicant because the applicant had been living with his uncle. It is an admitted fact that the non-applicant is the daughter of the deceased. Non-applicant resisted the claim of the applicant. She further stated that her father has not executed any "will" in favour of the applicant. The said "will" (Exh. P-l) is a forged one. After considering the evidence on record of the case, the Trial Court granted probate in favour of the applicant by holding that will executed in favour of the applicant is proper.

( 2. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant/non-applicant has submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error of law in granting probate in favour of the respondent. The "will" is not genuine and the respondent has failed to prove genuineness of the will. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:- (i) Bharpur Singh and others Vs. Shamsher Singh, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 687, (ii) Apoline Dsouza Vs. John Dsouza, (2007) 7 SCC 91 and 225, (iii) H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B. N. Thimmajamma and others, reported in AIR 1959 SC Pg. 443, (iv) Joseph Antony Lazarus (Dead) by L. Rs. Vs. A. J. Francis, (2006) 9 SCC 515, (v) Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi Vs. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and others, (2006) 13 SCC 433.

( 3. ) CONTRARY to this, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Trial Court has considered all the evidence on record and passed proper order. will executed by the deceased is in accordance with law. Hence, probate has rightly been granted in favour of the respondent/applicant. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:- (i) Sridevi and others Vs. Jayaraja Shetty and others, (2005) 2 scc 784, (ii) Pentakota Satyanarayana and others Vs. Pentakota seetharatnam and others, (2005) 8 SCC 67, (iii) Meenakshiammal (Dead) Through L. Rs. and others Vs. Chandrasekaran and another, (2005) 1 SCC 280, (iv) Keshav Prasad s/o Chhotelal and another Vs. Smt. Bhuwani bai and another, 2007 (1) MPLI499.

( 4. ) APPLICANT/respondent clearly stated in his application that the deceased was his uncle. He had been living with him, hence he executed the will in his favour with regard to land situated at Village Kota, Pargana District shivpuri. Copy of the will has been filed as Exh. P-l. In his evidence the applicant deposed that deceased Chhotelal was his real uncle and he died on 11-5-1995. The appellant is only daughter of the deceased. She got married in the year 1981. The respondent/applicant used to look after the deceased and thereafter deceased executed the will (Exh. P-l) in favour of the respondent/applicant. He got the will typed at the residence of Mr. Ashok agrawal, Advocate at the instance of Chhotelal. Thereafter he took the will to kota where deceased Chhotelal signed over the will along with witnesses namely Mr. Uday Singh and Karan Singh. Before execution of the will some property had been given to the appellant/non-applicant. At the time of execution of will the deceased was quite well and healthy. He dictated the will (Exh. P-l) and it was typed at the residence of Mr. Ashok Agrawal, advocate. He further admitted the fact that Chhotelal had came to the Court to attend the case and he died on 11-5-1995 due to heart attack. He also came to shivpuri Court on 13-3-1995,10-5-1995,5-5-1995 and 1-5-1995.

( 5. ) UDAY Singh witness No. 2, in his evidence, stated that Chhotelal executed the will and signed the will At that time, Karan Singh was als