- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.12.2006, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Palamau dismissing Title Suit No. 1/2004.
(2.) MR . Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It appears that the applicant/appellant filed a Probate Case No. 5/1993 for grant of probate of the Will allegedly executed by one Mangro Kuer, wife of Triloki Tiwary. Opposite Party nos. 1 to 5 are father and brothers of the applicant and they supported the case of the applicant. Opposite party nos. 6 to 10 were uncle and cousin brothers of the applicant, who objected the grant of probate. On such objection, the said Probate Case was registered as title suit.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed. The evidences produced by the parties were examined. The learned court rightly observed that a Will has been held to be pious document and it creates right in favour of person after ceasing or withdrawing rights of other person (s). Opposite party nos. 6 to 10 were the persons, whose rights were snapped by the Will in question. It further held that only two witnesses namely Ghura Chaudhary or Anil Kumar Pandey could explain the document to the testator but Ghura Chaudhary was not examined and Anil Kumar Pandey had admitted in evidence that he does not know English and therefore the applicant could not prove as to who explained the document prepared in English, to the testator.;