The probate court's jurisdiction is limited to determining the validity of the Will and does not extend to deciding the title or ownership of the property bequeathed under the Will.

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ.

1. The judgment and order dated 24.05.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Manipur East in Original Probate Suit No. 22 of 2000 has given rise to these two appeals.

2. The two defendants in the said probate Suit have filed the two appeals, the defendant No. 1 having filed FAO No. 4 of 2004 and the defendant No. 2 having filed the FAO No. 5 of 2004. The respondent No. 1 in both the appeals was the applicant/petitioner before the learned District Judge seeking for grant of probate in respect of a Will executed by his father late H. Dwijamani Dev Sharma on 04.4.1997 before his death on 28.2.2000. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that he is the executor name in the Will executed on 04.4.1997 by late H. Dwijamani Dev Sharma before his death on 28.2.2000 at his residence. It is the further case of the respondent No. 1 that the said will is the last Will and testament of late H. Dwijamani Dev Sharma and it had been executed in the presence of witnesses. The Will was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, H.Q. Imphal at Lamphel vide entry No. 932 dated 16.7.1998 and the original Will was in the custody of the Sub-Registrar. As per the said Will, the respondent No. 1, the deity, and H. Dwijamani Dev Sharma's sons and three grand sons and three daughters were the beneficiaries. As is evident from the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for grant of probate u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, several parcels of the properties have been bequeathed located at different places apart from movable properties such as books and cash. The prayer in the application was for grant of probate of the said will.

Out of the two defendants who were appellants before this Court, the defendants filed their written statement whereas, the defendant No. 2 (the appellant in FAO No. 5 of 2004) filed an additional written statement. The plea taken by the defendant No. 1 is that the testator had executed two WILLS earlier in respect of the properties owned by him and those wills are required to be looked into to find out as to whether the impugned Will dated 4.4.1997 legally valid since the previous wills were not revoked. The execution of the will by the testator was also disputed by the defendant No. 1 on the ground that the testator was not capable of independently writing a will as he was suffering from chronic cerebral blood flow insufficiency, ishchaemic heart disease and was mostly bed ridden. It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that the property mentioned in the Will dated 4.4.1997 did not belong to the testator and the testator having been influenced by some persons including those nominated in the Will executed the alleged Will to counter the family arrangement made in early 1962.

It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that in early part of 1962, there were only two earning members in the family i.e. the testator and defendant No. 1 himself. Both the testator and defendant No. 1 sold their respective properties in order to invest the sale proceed in urban property/construction etc. whereby the income of the defendant No. 1 has been inseparably amalgamated in the joint property. It is also stated by the defendant No. 1 that he invested his own earning to establish GPW College by running the family publication fund and the testator has wrongfully tried to bequeath the joint property. It was also stated by the defendant No. 1 that Testator became a prisoner under the control of the probate petitioner i.e. respondent No. 1 since 1967 when the testator filed O.S. No. 24 of 1967 in the Court of Munsif against the defendant No. 1 and other off-springs in relation to revocation of a Deed of Endowment and Deed of Settlement dated 1.2.1965 concerning plot No. 64-94-A within Imphal Municipality area under Patta No. 89/505 IWT. It is the case of the defendant No. 1 that the said property is recorded in the names of 5(five) sons of Testator and family deity and therefore such property could no