REETA KUMARI SINGH Vs. RAVINDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is cryptic and lacks reason. He submits that even the issues which have been framed have not been answered by the trial court. He states that in a most mechanical manner Title Suit No. 3 of 2004 arising out of Probate Case No. 5 of 2001 was dismissed. He submits that the judgment is perverse which needs to be set aside. The trial court in paragraph no.22 of the judgment has held that the Will was not validly executed as required under Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act, and the application was not signed and verified by the attesting witness under Sec. 281 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, thus the application was dismissed, which finding is challenged by the appellant.

(3.) After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, I find that in a most mechanical manner and without application of mind the District Judge-II, Giridih has disposed the Title Suit No. 3 of 2004 arising out of Probate Case No. 5 of 2001. A Will was executed by Shanti Devi wife of late Sundar Singh, who happens to be the mother of the appellant-petitioner and the respondents. The will was executed in favour of the appellant, thus the appellant filed an application for grant of probate. The contesting respondent who happens to be the brother of the appellant opposed the said probate case which was numbered as Probate Case No. 5 of 2001, so the same was converted to Title Suit No. 3 of 2004. The trial court in paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment referred to the fact of execution of the will and conversion of the Probate Case to the Title Suit.