SANKAR ACHARYYA,J. - (1.) This appeal being APDT No. 18 of 2017 has been filed by plaintiff appellant on being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of dismissal dated 30th March, 2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this High Court in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 2002. The appellant has filed an application being no. G.A. No. 1584 of 2017 for stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree. Respondents have filed counter affidavit against the application for stay and appellant has filed affidavit in reply to that counter affidavit. The appeal and the application have been heard together.
(2.) We have perused the memorandum of appeal and application for stay with counter affidavit and affidavit in reply referred to above.
(3.) In the memorandum of appeal, inter alia, the appellant has contended that in the impugned judgment learned Judge erred in explaining section 138 of the Evidence Act and holding that ingredients of the Indian Succession Act , 1925 were not fulfilled. Appellant has claimed that the will as a document itself is admissible in evidence, and that there was no irregularity in this case in the mode of proving the will. Appellant has also claimed that the will in this case was clearly proved in accordance with the requirement of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.;