The court emphasized the proper execution and proof of the Will, fulfillment of legal requirements, and the limited scope of the Probate Court's jurisdiction in examining the authenticity of the Will.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is directed against the judgment and order, dated 07.05.2003, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in Case No. Misc. (Probate) 02 of 2001, whereby and where-under the learned Addl. District Judge granted certificate of Probate of the Will dated 07.02.1994, executed by one Parija Bibi in respect of her property mentioned in the Will. Heard learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel Ms. D. Das for the appellant and learned Sr. counsel, Mr. B. Das assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty for the respondent.

2. Brief facts:

2.1 Parija Bibi, Wife of Abdul Hamid, a resident of village Dhaliai, P.S. Sonamura, District West Tripura, alleged to have executed a Will on 07.02.1994 in respect of her properties mentioned in the Schedule of the said Will bequeathing the properties to her foster son (adopted son Abdul Gani), the respondent herein, and by dint of the assertions made in the Will she appointed Abdul Gani as the executor of the Will. The testator Parija Bibi, a Bengali Muslim woman, alleged to have executed the Will on 07.02.1994 and she died on 25.05.94 at Sonamura. The propounder Abdul Gani on 07.03.1995 filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act praying for granting Probate of the Will and the Will was annexed with the petition. The petition was originally filed in the Court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and was registered as Misc.(Probate) No. 07 of 1995 which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonamura and was renumbered as Misc. (Probate) 02 of 2001.

2.2 It was contended by the petitioner that Parija Bibi and her husband Abdul Hamid adopted the petitioner Abdul Gani as their son since they had no issue. Abdul Gani knew nothing about his parentage and his foster parents i.e. Parija Bibi and Abdul Hamid brought him up with all love and affection as their son and the petitioner also would respect and treat Parija Bibi and Abdul Hamid as his parents. Parija Bibi had no other legal heirs since she had no issue and the Will was executed while she was physically and mentally fit. Abdul Hamid was a witness to the Will and the Will was prepared according to the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. The total 2.91/4 acres of land were involved in the Will which Parija Bibi bequeathed executing the Will.

2.3 The appellant being a son of younger sister of Parija Bibi contested the claim of the petitioner-respondent by filing a written objection, inter alia, stating that Parija Bibi at the time of her death left behind, her husband Abdul Hamid, who was entitled to 50% of the property as a legal heir of Parija Bibi. The appellant and his two sisters being the son and daughters of younger sister of Parija Bibi were entitled to inherit the rest 50% of the property of Parija Bibi. The impugned Will was not executed by Parija on her free will since she was aged about 80 years at the time of execution of the Will and she did not execute the Will in presence of the attesting witnesses and further the propounder of the Will i.e. the petitioner-respondent taking advantage of living together with the testator might have created unnatural pressure and thereby obtained the Will which was not executed by the testator at her free will. The Will was not genuine and likely to be forged and it was obtained by the propounder Abdul Gani with a view to grab the property of Parija Bibi. The appellant has further contended that the testator being a Muslim woman was not entitled to bequeath more than 1/3rd of the property. The propounder of the Will, being not a legal heir of the deceased, the testator, had no right to get bequeathed the entire property, depriving other legal heirs of testator, without their consent. The Will since not genuine document, the propounder was not entitled to get a certificate of Probate.

3. The trial Court consi