The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in establishing the genuineness of a will and the interpretation of evidence related to the execution of the will and the transfer of property.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 07.05.2013 delivered in T.A. No.14 of 2012 by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur [as he then was]. By the said judgment, the judgment dated 28.04.2012 delivered in T.S.33(P) of 2010 by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, South Tripura, Udaipur [as he then was] has been reversed and the suit instituted by the appellant being T.S.33(P) of 2010 for partition, declaration of the will as manufactured and inoperative and mean profit has been dismissed holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to the decree for partition as prayed for, as he had no existing right over the suit property. There was an attempt to explore an amicable settlement of the dispute which exists between the siblings, cousin and their mother but that has failed.

2. Briefly stated the relevant fact is that the appellant filed the suit. The plaintiff and the respondents No.2 and 4 are siblings, whereas the respondent No.1 is the widow of the predecessor and mother of the plaintiff and respondent No.4. The property in question has been left by Nibaran Ch. Ghosh, the father of the plaintiff and the respondents No.2 to 4 and husband of the respondent No.1. According to the plaintiff, the parties are entitled to one sixth share each of the suit land as described in the Schedule-A of the plaint. Nibaran Ch. Ghosh died on 21.10.2008. According to the plaintiff, after his death, he had persuaded the other defendants, the respondents herein, to cause partition of the said land by executing a registered partition deed. But the defendants No.1 and 2 claimed that they were and are the owners of the suit land by bequest and subsequent transfer. Hence the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 shall vacate the suit land. The defendant No.1 has transferred the land measuring 2.52 acres on accepting consideration money to the defendants No.3 and 4, the respondents No.3 and 4 herein. The plaintiff has brought on record that there was intervention by the village elders. In a village meeting it was disclosed that the defendant No.1 transferred her land to the defendants No.3 and 4 by a registered sale deed. When the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 demanded to show them the registered will and the sale deed, neither the defendants No.1 and 2 nor the defendants No.3 and 4 could show those instrument. In the emerged circumstances, the said suit was instituted by the appellant. The defendants No.1 to 4 seriously disputed the claim of the plaintiff by filing their written statement. In the said written statement it has been asserted that Nibaran Ch. Ghosh by the will registered on 17.11.2004 bequeathed his landed property measuring 2.52 acres to defendant No.1, the respondent No.1 herein and the remaining landed property measuring 0.50 acre to the defendant No.2. After death of Nibaran Ch. Ghosh on 21.01.2008, the defendants No.1 and 2 maintained their possession over the suit land. Later on, by the registered sale deed No.1-1249 dated 14.07.2009, the defendant No.1 sold her entire property to the defendants No.3 and 4 on receiving the consideration money as settled. The defendants No.3 and 4 have been possessing the said land measuring 2.52 acre by growing seasonal crops and enjoying usufruct. Before filing of the suit, the plaintiff annoyed the defendants No.2 to 4 attempting to dispossess them. The defendant No.5 whose relation with Nibaran Ch. Ghosh is not very clear either from the plaint or from the evidence, save and except that the plaintiff has claimed that during his life-time Nibaran Ch. Ghosh demarcated a piece of the suit land in her favour, filed a separate written statement. In her written statement, she has asserted that the will was created by personification as Nibaran Ch. Ghosh had never executed such will bequeathing the suit land property in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2. It may also be noted that in her written statement she has claimed that she had already relinq