- (1.) This appeal, under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short "the Act"), is directed against the order dated 1st March, 2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Morigaon in Misc. Probate Case No. 26/1998 granting letter of administration in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 (i) to 1 (iv) and also the respondent Nos. 2(i) to 2(v), who were the brothers of the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. The predecessors-in-interest of the present respondent Nos. 1 (i) to 1 (iv) and 2 (i) to 2 (iv), hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents, filed an application for grant of letter of administration, in the Court of the learned District Judge, Morigaon, which was registered and numbered as Misc. Probate Case No. 26/1998, contending inter-alia that their father executed a Will on 5th July, 1968, which was registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, being registration No. 4/1968, bequeathing his landed property, other than the land in possession of his son Cheniram Deka (predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 3 to 7) being his share of land, in favour of 2 (two) other sons, namely the contesting respondents, as the other son Haneswar Deka (predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Nos. 1 to 5), hereinafter referred to as the original appellant, left the father's residence forever and did not look after his father and pay any maintenance, without however, appointing any executor. It was further contended that though the Will was executed in the year 1968, the application seeking letter of administration was filed in the year 1998, as Haneswar Deka, the original appellant, came in that year and started claiming the property by right of inheritance.
(2.) In the said proceeding, the original appellant, namely Haneswar Deka, who was the second son of the testator, Harai Deka, apart from the successors-in-interest of another son Cheniram Deka (respondent Nos. 3 to 4) were made parties. While the original appellant contested the said proceeding by filing written objection, the said proceeding, however, was not contested by the successors-in-interest of another son of Harai Deka, namely Cheniram Deka, In the written objection filed basically it has been contended that no such Will was executed by Harai Deka bequeathing the property and even if the same was executed, it was not done out of free will, as he was not in good and sound health at the relevant point of time and was under the influence of the contesting respondents. It has also been contended that Harai Deka left behind 4 (four) sons, namely Haneswar Deka, the original appellant, Maneswar Deka, Dandi Deka, the contesting respondents, and Cheniram Deka (the predecessor-in-interest of the present proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 7), who after the death of their father amicably partitioned the landed property left behind by him in equal shares and possessing the same by constructing dwelling houses thereon. It has also been contended that only with a view to deprive the original appellant from his share of inherited property, the 2 (two) brothers created a forged Will without giving any schedule of the land and filed the application for grant of letter of administration.
(3.) The contesting respondents, namely Maneswar Deka and Dandi Deka in support of the prayer for grant of letter of administration examined 2 (two) witnesses, namely the applicant No. 1 himself (Maneswar Deka) and Rajendra Saikia, who was one of the attesting witnesses, to prove the due execution of the Will. Sri Haneswar Deka, the original appellant, also examined himself in the said proceeding in support of his case. The witnesses were cross examined by the respective parties. 2 (two) documents, namely the letter dated 3rd February, 1967 written by Haneswar Deka (original appellant) and the registered Will dated 5th July 1968, were exhibited by the contesting respondents. The learned District Judge, upon consideration of the evidences on record, has granted the letter of administration in favour of the contesting respondents by the aforesaid order. Hence the present appeal.;