The central legal point established is that for probate, the Will must be the last Will of the deceased, while for granting letter of administration, this requirement is not essential.

This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against judgment and order dated 15.03.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge(Court No.2), Agartala, West Tripura in case No.Misc.(Probate) 5 of 2003.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Choudhury for respondent No.1. Other respondents did not participate in the hearing in spite of service of notice.

3. Respondent No.1 presented a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala praying for granting him probate in respect of the Will executed by his father, Biraj Mohan Saha on 13.10.1995 in respect of land measuring 3 ganda 6 dhur with a temple and residential building along with trees and other huts thereon. Biraj Mohan Saha died on 09.07.2000. The petitioner, Dhirendra Kumar Saha is the beneficiary of the Will and is the propounder for granting probate. In his application for probate he interaliacontended that it was the last Will executed by his father for the property mentioned in the schedule of the petition valued about rupees one lakh. In the application for probate the petitioner arrayed his five brothers as opposite party Nos.1 to 5 which include the present appellant as opposite party No.3 and also arrayed his mother as opposite party No.6, sisters as opposite party Nos.7 and 8 and the legal representatives of his deceased brother, Dilip Kumar Saha as opposite party Nos.9 to 11 and also two others as the respondent/opposite parties.

4. Out of the thirteen respondentopposite parties, the respondentOP Nos.3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 submitted a joint written objection and respondentOP No.3,i.e.the appellant filed a further separate written objection interaliacontending that Biraj Mohan Saha executed another Will on 19.05.1997 and thereby bequeathed his property by that Will which was the last Will and a probate case bearing case No.Misc.(Probate).4 of 2003 was pending in the Court. The opposite parties further contended that no such will was executed by Biraj Mohan Saha on 13.10.1995 bequeathing the property in favour of the petitioner and hence the petitioner was not entitled to certificate of probate.

5. In course of hearing, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and also examined his mother Laxmi Rani Saha, OP No.6 as PW2 and the Deed Writer,i.e.the scribe of the Will, Sukha Ranjan Roy as PW3 and one of the attesting witness, Mohan Lal Saha as PW4. It was a Will executed and registered in the office of the SubRegistrar at Agartala. The Will has been proved as Exbt.1. The signature of the testator as well as the signature of the attesting witnesses have been proved.

6. On perusal of the evidence of witnesses I find that the trial Court in the examinationinchief of PW Sukha Ranjan Roy recorded him as PW3 but in crossexamination recorded as PW4 and in respect of Mohan Lal Saha, in the examinationinchief recorded as PW4 but in crossexamination recorded as PW3. However, the signatures of the witnesses properly obtained. There were two attesting witnesses in the Will, one was Mohan Lal Saha who has proved his signature and the other witness, Birendra Chandra Roy died and his signature has been proved by PW3, Sukha Ranjan Roy.

7. OP No.3i.e.the appellant Uttam Kumar Saha examined himself as DW1 and he proved a firisti of documents dated 27.5.2006 which is marked as Exbt. A. The copies of the documents enclosed with the firisti have not been proved or marked as exhibits.

8. The trial Court considering the pleadings and the evidence by impugned order dated 15.03.2007 granted letter of administration in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property mentioned in the Will and in the schedule of the petition.

9. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is the requirement of Section 276(1)(b) of the Indian Succes