(1.) The petitioner made an application for revocation of the probate. His allegation is that his father, Panchkari, died on the 22nd Oct., 1940, leaving the petitioner as son of his first predeceased wife, opposite party No. 2 Nripanandini as his widow and some children by Ms second wife. Panchkari inherited the premises No. 8/1, Ghosepara Lane, from his father. He had another house at Mahinath para Lane and 18 bighas of arable land at Garbhawanipur within the Police Station Amta. From one month before his death he was lying bed-ridden and at last on 22-10-1940 he expired. One week before his father's death the opposite party No. 1 in collusion with opposite party No. 2 took advantage of the bad state of health of his father and with a view to depriving him of the property, obtained Panchkari's thumb-impressions on the alleged fraudulent will said to have been executed on 20-10-1940. Actually that will was obtained by exercising undue influence and Panchkari had no knowledge of its contents. Opposite party No. 1 Bhabesh used to manage Panchkari's affairs. A few days before Panchkari's death, Bhabesh obtained petitioner's signature on a blank piece of paper on the false representation that the same would be used for settlement of some properties. There was no citation of that probate case on him. The land at Garbhawanipur was the petitioner's personal property. On the 26th April, 1957, he first came to know of alleged fraudulent and forged will in course of a domestic quarrel.
(2.) Opposite party Nos. 1-3 denied the petitioner's allegations. The defence is that the will was duly executed and attested. Panchkari executed the same voluntarily and with full knowledge of its contents. He had testamentary capacity to execute the same. The petitioner put his thumb impression on the will as an attesting witness.
(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the petitioner's contention and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this appeal by the petitioner.