D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the heirs of one Nagen Mahto against the order dated 28.6.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge II, Bokaro in L.A. Case No. 2/80 by which the application for issuance of letters of administration was refused.
(2.) THE appellants, now the heirs of said Nagen Mahto, assailed the judgment and order of the learned lower court asserting in the memo of appeal that learned lower court has failed to consider the admitted fact on record. According to this memo of appeal, the learned lower court should have considered that in absence of attesting witnesses, the evidence of the scribe of the will has sufficiently proved the execution of the will in question. It is also asserted that the delay in filing the letters of administration has also been explained sufficiently. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the circumstantial evidences were sufficient to prove that said will was executed by intestate in proper state of mind. The other point raised in this memo of appeal is that earlier the lower court has passed ex parte order dated 9.3.83 granting letters of administration, however the said order has been (sic) on 10.3.83. Thus the order under challenge dated 28.6.2000 is without jurisdiction. Notices were Issued upon the respondents, which were returned unserved on the ground that the contessing defendant Chepia Mahtain was dead and Lapla Mahatain did not appear.
(3.) PERUSED the lower court records as well as the judgment under challenged. It is admitted fact on record that said Nagen Mahto applied for Issuance of leters of administration on the basis of will said to be executed by one Nandu Mahto on 6.2.62, who admittedly died on 9.11.64. The petition was filed in the year 1980 more than 15 years after the death of said (sic) Mahto. The learned lower court has discussed the evidence produced before it and found that all the attesting witnesses of the disputed document were dead prior to filing of the said case. The contesting defenda its Chepia and Lapia have contested the case on the ground that they were widow and daughters of the deceased and the will in question was forged and fabricated.;