JANAKI BOHIDAR Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR BOHIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the reversing order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bolangir, directing grant of Succession Certificate in favour of opposite party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 filed application under Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act before the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir, for grant of Succession Certificate on the basis of a will allegedly executed by Braja Bihari Bohidar. There is no dispute that the aforesaid Braja Bihari Bohidar was a bachelor. Opposite Party No. 1 is a nephew of Braja Bihari, being son of one brother. The petitioners who were arrayed as opposite parties are respectively the widow and two sons of deceased's brother and the brother of Braja Bihari. There is no dispute that Braja Bihari died on 2-9-1987. Opposite Party No. 1 claims that Braja Bihari had executed the Will on 4-5-1979 and bequeathed all his property in favour of opposite party No. 1. The present petitioners have filed objection denying the execution of the Will by the deceased. It was also pleaded that the Will had been obtained by exercise of undue influence and had not been duly attested by the attesting witnesses.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge rejected the application for grant of Succession Certificate on the ground that due execution of the Will including the due attestation had not been proved and many suspicious circumstances had not been explained. The present opposite party No. 1 filed appeal which has been allowed by the appellate authority on the finding that due execution of the Will including the attestation had been proved and the alleged suspicious circumstances had neither been pleaded nor proved properly.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the oral evidence adduced on behalf of present opposite party No. 1 and has tried to assail the findings of the lower appellate Court particularly, the finding regarding the due attestation of the Will. He has submitted that various suspicious circumstances which had been noticed by the trial Court, having not been explained, the genuineness of the Will should have been disbelieved.