NARAYAN SAH Vs. SM DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the objector in a proceeding for grant of probate is directed against the order dated 26-6-1975, passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Muzaffarpur, holding that the objector has no locus standi to oppose the grant of probate or letters of administration.

(2.) It is not disputed that one Dhanraj Sah died leaving two widows, namely, Anurago Kuer and Inder Kuer. It is said that Anurago Kuer executed a will on 29-10-1958, in favour of the opposite party Deoki Devi with respect to her half share in her husband's estate. The aforesaid Devaki Devi claimed herself to be grand-daughter-in-law of Kapur Chand who was the brother of the testator. Anurago Kuer died on 13-1-1966. According to the opposite party the original will was in possession of the testator and in spite of search It was not available after her death and accordingly an informative petition was filed before the Sub-divisional Officer to that effect. On 12-4-1966, the aforesaid Devaki Devi filed an application for grant of probate which was registered as probate case No. 11 of 1966. Inder Kuer, the second wife of Dhanrai Sah (deceased) filed a case on 21-7-1966. In the said objection various grounds were raised against the grant of probate. It was alleged that the will was fraudulent forged, fabricated and concocted and that the will purported to have been executed on 29-10-1958, was not validly executed by Anurago Kuer. It was also stated that the names of all the relations were not disclosed and, accordingly, a genealogy was given showing all the relations of Dhanrai Sah. It is not necessary to mention other objections which were stated in the petition of objection. However, Inder Kuer died on 2-2-1971. After her death, on 9-11-1971 the petitioner entered caveat alleging that after the death of Dhanraj Saih both the co-widows succeeded to his properties half and half and after Anurago's death the property was held absolutely by Inder Kuer who was the full owner. It was further stated that on 6-5-1970, the aforesaid Inder Kuer executed a will in favour of the petitioner in respect of all the properties possessed by her. It has also been mentioned that previous to the execution of the will all the properties were gifted by the aforesaid Inder Kuer in favour of the petitioner, but, it was thought that the said deed of gift was void as permission of the consolidation officer was not taken and accordingly she executed the aforesaid will in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged the genuineness of the will executed by Anurago Kuer in favour of Devaki Devi. It was further stated that the will was forged and did not contain the thumb-impressions and the signature of the deceased nor was it drafted, written, signed, witnessed and scribed at Anurago Kuer's instance or in her presence. It was also stated that the will was not presented before the Sub-Registrar nor admitted by the said Anurago Kuer.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, the court below decided by the impugned order that the petitioner has no locus standi to oppose the grant of probate as he has no chance of succeeding to the Estate of Dhanrai Sah.