PARWATI DEVI Vs. MUNDARIKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgmnent and order dated 9.5.2002 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, in probate case no 11/98 whereby he has refused to grant the probate of the will and dismissed the probate case holding that the will seems to be a suspicious document and the genuineness of the will has not been proved in accordance with law.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and in course of argument I have gone through a copy of the will produced by him. From perusal of the will, it appears that there is no mention that the executant, in the sound state of mind executed the will. In the witness column there is signature of one Dilip Dome (sweeper) and there is another signature of Chandrasekhar Ram to the effect that the will was signed in his presence. The LTI of the testator was identified by one Sudarshan Singh. Chandrashekhar Singh and Sudarshan Singh have not been examined. Only Dilip Dome was examined who has not proved the will in accordance with law. Even the LTI of the testatrix was not proved besides that the court below came to a finding that on the same date when the will was allegedly executed, the testatrix died in the hospital. Neither any doctor nor any lawyer, alleged to be present, have been examined. Taking into consideration all these facts the learned court below refused to grant probate of the will. I am in full agreement that the stand taken by the court below in holding that the will is a suspicious document and the genuineness of the will has not been proved in accordance with law. The impugned judgment of the court therefore, needs no interference. This appeal is dismissed.