The court upheld the validity of the Wills executed by the testatrix, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the propounder to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding their execution.

JUDGMENT :

This first appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2024 and decree dated 04.10.2024 delivered by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhalai District, Ambassa [camp at Kamalpur] in connection with case No.TS(Partition) No.1 of 2022.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Dipak Deb appearing on behalf of the appellant and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent-defendants.

3. Before deciding the merit of the appeal let us highlight the subject matter of the dispute for which the suit was preferred. The present appellant filed the suit for partition of the suit land measuring 0.33 acres recorded in Khatian No.798 under Mouja and TK Halhali, PS-Kamalpur, District-Dhalai and also for cancellation of two nos. of registered Wills bearing nos.III-64 and III-65, dated 17.07.2020. According to the appellant-plaintiff, she is the wife of one Subhash Choudhury (since dead) and mother of plaintiff No.2 being minor represented by her mother. The defendant No.1 of the original suit Sankar Choudhury is the full blooded brother of said Subhash Choudhury (since dead) and Samir Choudhury (since dead) was also the full-blooded brother of late Subhash Choudhury and father of Smt. Sudipta Choudhury (defendant No.2 of the original suit). Sephali Chakraborty @ Sephali Choudhury, W/O Late Sachindra Choudhury was the mother of Subhash Choudhury (since dead), Sankar Choudhury and Samir Choudhury (since dead). Said Sephali Chakraborty alias Choudhury was the owners in possession of land measuring 0.33 acre as described in the plaint under old CS plot No.174/p, Pb-441,175,174/p corresponding to Hal Plot Nos.283, 284, 285 of Khatian No.798 at Mouja-Halhali, Tehsil-Halhali, Revenue Circle-Salema, Kamalpur. During his lifetime according to the appellant, Subhash Choudhury (since dead) provided sufficient financial support to his mother Sephali Chakraborty alias Choudhury for the development and construction of huts and structures on the suit land. He also took the responsibility for taking care of defendant No.2 following the untimely death of their parents in 2014. Subhash Choudhury passed away on 30.04.2019 prior to his mother’s death, leaving behind his mother and the plaintiffs i.e. the appellants herein as his legal heirs. Later on Sephali Chakraborty alias Choudhury also passed away on 29.07.2020 leaving behind the plaintiffs now the appellants herein and the respondent-defendants as her legal heirs. Following the death of her mother-in-law, the plaintiff-appellant No.1 submitted a proposal to the defendants for equitable distribution of the suit land. Defendant No.1 assured that upon obtaining the survival certificate and other relevant documents, he would facilitate an amicable partition of the suit property through the execution and registration of a deed of partition and accordingly, the appellant No.1 was awaiting for the same. During the 1st week of March 2021, the plaintiff No.1 again urged the defendant No.1 for amicable partition of the suit land when the defendant No.1 expressed his displeasure and also asserted that the plaintiffs have no rightful claim to the suit property as the original owner i.e., Sephali Chakraborty alias Choudhury had bequeathed the land to the defendants through two separate registered Wills. Hearing the same, plaintiff No.1 made an objection on 11.09.2020 to the Tehsildar Halhali T.K. for withholding the mutation. After that, the plaintiff No.1 collected the certified copy of those two Wills bearing No.III-64 and III-65 dated 17.07.2020 which were executed just few days before the demise of her mother-in-law. It was alleged that at the time of execution of Wills the testatrix was more than 84 years and she was not mentally and physically sound to execute such Wills. The appellant-plaintiffs on going through the contents of those Wills became astonished to know that there was no mention about the plaintiffs about their share over the sui