PARASNATH GIRI Vs. DURGA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/Objector being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 21.11.2011 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran in Probate Case No. 24/1995 whereby and whereunder held the Will dated 24.05.1995 executed by the deceased Chandra Giri genuine and in pursuance thereof, granted Letter of Administration in favour of applicant/respondent, Durga Giri for management of temple property, filed the instant petition.

(2.) Applicant/Respondent filed a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration with respect to the properties so detailed on account of Will dated 24.05.1995 executed by late Chandra Giri son of Sheodhari Giri of village, Mangalpur, West Champaran in his favour after the death of aforesaid Chandra Giri on 24.08.1995, after completing the other legal obligations.

(3.) Appellant/Objector appeared and filed WS wherein, apart from raising ornamental objection, had also challenged the status of the applicant who had been identified as shrewd litigant, dishonest, greedy and further, in order to grab the property belonging to the deity, maneuvered the whole event and as such, prayed for dismissal of the application. It has further been averred that deceased, Chandra Giri died in jointness with the objector. It has also been submitted that Ful Kuer, wife of Chandra Giri who had self acquisition had endowed 1 Bigha 10 Katthas and 5 Dhurs to Shankarji vide registered deed of endowment dated 22.05.1980. It has also been submitted that other properties have also been gifted to Shankarji. It has further been disclosed that the Ful Kuer herself as well as the heirs after her death have been picked up in order to maintain the temple as well as to provide Rajbhog, Samaiya, service to the deity, saint which will be provided form the usufruct which, after death of Ful Kuer was being performed by the Chandra Giri (deceased) and after his death, objector, as has been nominated by the mass in general identifying the Institution to be public in character, began to look after. After death of Chandra Giri, his Shradha was performed by the objector. Property as well as temple is being looked after by the objector. Bataidari claim was advanced under Bataidari Case No. 96/1997 against objector at the instance of one Raghunath Yadav and the same was duly contested by him relating to the properties possessed by deity. Rent is being paid by him.