S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT appeal has its origin in the order dated 1.5.1981 passed by the then District Judge, Fatehpur, granting probate in favour of Mukundi Lal, Prabandhak, Ramesh Kalyankari Junior High School, Khaga, District Fatehpur under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case as are essential and necessary for decision of the moot point giving rise to the present appeal are that one Ayodhya Singh was the tenure -holder of the properly in dispute. Appellant, M. P. Singh happens to be the sister's son of Ayodhya Singh, who died on 11.3.1977. Mukundi Lal, Prabandhak, Ramesh Kalyankari Junior High School and Ramesh Kalyankari Junior Basic School, moved an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Fatehpur with the allegations that Ayodhya Singh had executed a will on 11.2.1977 in favour of the Institutions afforestated of which the applicant namely, Mukundi Lal claimed himself to be the Manager. The application was contested by the Appellant who claimed to be the successor -in -interest of deceased Ayodhya Singh with respect to property in question which would have been entailed on him sans the Will. It was alleged by the Appellant that the will was a sham transaction and Ayodhya Singh deceased was not in a sound state of mind and body at the time of the alleged execution of the will and that the applicant was not entitled to the grant of probate in his favour. Learned District Judge, upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, deduced that the Will, Ext. 1 was the last testament of Ayodhya Singh in favour of Kalyankari Junior High School and Kalyankari Junior Basic School, which institution has since been re -christened as Ramesh Kalyankari Junior High School and Ramesh Kalyankari Junior Basic School and Mukundi Lal was the Manager of the institutions. The learned District Judge, also found that due execution and attestation of the will was established on the basis of the record. Accordingly, the objection was rejected and the application for grant of probate was allowed vide order under appeal.
(3.) I have heard Sri Shree Kant Misra, counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri Haji Iqbal Ahmad, counsel appearing for the Respondents.;