- (1.) BOTH the connected appeals were heard together.
(2.) M .A. 136 of 2006 arises out of Title Suit No. 2 of 2005 which arose from Probate Case No. 3 of 2002 filed by Parikshit Choubey, Brij Raj Chobey, Tirath Raj Chobey and Yugal Kishore Choubey - appellants (hereinafter referred to as Parikshit and others) against Din Dayal Choubey, Dina Nath Choubey and Dhananjay Kumar Choubey -respondents (hereinafter referred as Din Dayal and others); for granting probate in their favour on the basis of the purported Will dated 15.6.2001 of Most. Gati Kuar. M.A. No. 223 of 200S, on the other hand, arises out of Title Suit No. 1 of 2005 which arose from Probate Case No. 6 of 2001 filed by Din Dayal and others -appellants, against Parikshit and others - respondents, for granting probate in their favour on the basis of the purported Will dated 10.4.2001 of Most. Gati Kuar.
(3.) PARIKSHIT and others contended that the said Will dated 15.6.2001 was executed in their favour and the Will dated 10,4.2001 said to have been executed in favour of Din Dayal and, others was 10/5/2014 Page 184 Sunanda Nandi Versus State Of Jharkhand forged and fabricated document. Similarly, Din Dayal and others claimed that Will dated 10.4.2001 was executed in their favour and the Will dated 15.6.2001 said to have been executed in favour of Parikshit and others is forged fabricated.;