S.N.Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 11.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhanbad in Title Probate Case No. 04 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has dismissed the application of the appellants/ applicants.
(3.) The case of the plaintiffs before the learned Court below in brief was that they approached the Court for probate of Will executed by their grandfather Ramchandra Prasad (Mistry) in their favour.. It is further the case of the appellants that Ramchandra Prasad purchased two plots having Plot No. 1520 and 1522 under Mouza Chhatabag from one Diwakar Mahto and Fagu Yadav by two sale deeds. After his death, his only son Ram Kewal Prasad stepped into the shoes of his father as sole and absolute owner in accordance with Hindu Succession Act. In the year, 1998, out of love and affection, Ramchandra Prasad made a Will on 24.04.1998 in favour of plaintiffs Sanjay Prasad, Pappu Prasad and Bijay Prasad and their father Ram Kewal Prasad was appointed as executor. At that time, Sanjay Prasad and Pappu Prasad were minors and they were residing under the guardianship of their father. Therefore, they have been represented by Ram Keval Prasad. Ramchandra Prasad executed said Will in presence of witnesses for the land mentioned in schedule, which is of Mouza-Chhatabad No. 171 under Khata No.10 bearing S.S. Plot No.1520 and 1522, both having area 42 decimals. Will was voluntarily executed without any pressure or influence or coercion on 24.04.1998. Meanwhile, Ramchandra Prasad died on 03.05.1999 leaving behind his only son Ram Kewal Prasad, therefore, no one except, State of Bihar had been made opposite party representing the general public. Ramchandra Prasad was living at Chhatabad in house of his son Ram Kewal Prasad and out of love and affection, executed the said Will. It has been certified that, no application for grant of probate or letters of administration was filed earlier by the applicants for the assets mentioned in the schedule. In support of death of Ramchandra Prasad, death certificate was been filed. After admission of the probate case, notice was issued to the Collector, Dhanbad for valuation of the property and property was valued for Rs. 3.20 lacs and stamp duty fee of Rs. 28,800/- was deposited through Challan. On 04.07.2001, Parvati Devi, daughter of Ramchandra Prasad filed an application to implead her as opposite party. Her application was allowed and she was impleaded as Opposite party. She filed her show-cause and petition was also filed, therefore, probate application was converted into suit. Parvati Devi in her petition, she has submitted that application for probate filed by the applicants is not maintainable either in law or on facts. She is only daughter of Ram Chandar Prasad and applicants have no relation with Ram Chandar Prasad. Ram Kewal Prasad has filed forged, fabricated and manufacture document purported to be the Will of Ram Chandar Prasad. Her father never executed any Will in favour of the applicants. Ram Kewal Prasad in order to grab the land of her father, has manufactured documents and is liable to be prosecuted for committing forgery. Fraud committed by Ram Kewal Prasad is evident from the fact that in the cause title, she has been described as sister of Sanjay Prasad, who is son of Ram Kewal Prasad. Signature of her father in plaint of title suit No. 123 of 1997 is totally different from the Will filed by Ram Kewal Prasad. Alleged Will was not prepared, signed or executed in presence of the witness, which is apparent from the will. The date below signature of Ram Chandra Prasad is mentioned as 24.04.1998 whereas date below the signature of witness is 27.04. Therefore will was not signed in presence of the witness and as such, probate application filed by the appellants is fit to be dismissed.;