JUDGMENT

Challenging order dated 29.03.2023 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in P and S.C.No.39/2022, appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant had filed petition under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act for grant of letter of administration in respect of registered Will dated 18.02.2014 executed by Smt.Nanjamma. It was submitted that one Sri Veerabhadrachar @ Puttachar had two wives namely, Smt.Putteeramma and Smt.Nanjamma. Neither of whom had any issues. It was submitted Sri Veerabhadrachar had acquired various properties in and around Adakamaranahalli village.

3. It was submitted, on 07.05.1976 Smt.Nanjamma executed relinquishment deed in respect of 2/3rd portion of properties of Sri Veerabhadrachar and acquired right over 1/3rd. But, as Sri Veerabhadrachar died on 17.06.1988 and even his first wife Smt.Putteeramma had pre-deceased him intestate. Smt.Nanjamma succeeded to entire estate of Sri Veerabhadrachar. It was stated that after death of her husband, Smt.Nanjamma was residing with petitioner, who was her nephew i.e., her brother's son.

4. That on 18.02.2014, Smt. Nanjammma executed a registered Will in favour of petitioner in respect of entire schedule properties and thereafter she died on 13.01.2017. In view of above, petitioner had filed petition under Section 278 for issuance of letter of administration. It was submitted though paper publication was taken as per order of Court dated 17.09.2022, there were no objections/claims received. Therefore, matter was proceeded, wherein petitioner-legatee examined himself as PW.1, attester and scribe of Will as PWs.2 and 3 respectively. Copy of registered Will was marked as Ex.P1, death certificate of Smt.Nanjamma as Ex.P2, Adhaar card of Smt.Nanjamma as P3, RTC extracts as Exs.P4 to P8, endorsement issued by Tahasildar as Ex.P9, revenue records as Exs.P10 to 24, Genealogical tree as Ex.P25, death certificate of Sri.Veerabhadrachar as Ex.P26 and copy of release deed as Ex.P27 respectively.

6. It was submitted that attester had duly deposed about testator executing Will on 18.02.2014 in his presence. He also identified signature of testator as well as his own signature on Will, which were marked. Likewise, PW.3 had stated about preparation of Will as per instructions issued by Smt.Nanjamma. Such being case merely on ground that PW.2 had not specifically stated that he had seen that testatrix sign on Will, trial Court held that requirements of law regarding proof of Will as not satisfied and proceeded to dismiss petition.

7. It was submitted admittedly there were no legal heirs of Sri Veerabhadrachar and Smt.Nanjamma. It was further submitted that either in response to citation before Trial Court or before this Court, there were any other contesting claims. Thus there was no dispute regarding Will. Further, Will in question is a registered Will, attracting presumption. Such being case, when deponent had stated about testator affixing signature on Will in his presence, observation of trial Court by reading in between lines and considering same as grave suspicious circumstances would not be justifiable and sought for setting aside impugned order by granting letter of administration.

8. Heard learned counsel and pursed.

9. From above only point that arises for consideration is :

"Whether order impugned is in accordance or calls for interference?"

10. On perusal of impugned order, it is seen that only ground for refusing grant of letter of administration by trial Court was that PW.2 had not specifically stated that he had seen testatrix affix her signature on Will. Law regarding proof of Will and appreciation of suspicious circumstances is well settled in decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivakumar & Ors. Vs. Sharanabassappa & Ors. reported in (2021) 11 SCC

277.

11. It is well settled that each and every discrepancy cannot be treated as grave suspicious circumstance to conclude agai