On that very date the statement of one of the attesting witnesses Sankatha Prasad Singh had been recorded.
Chhangur Sahu who died on October 20, 1962 when he was over 87 years of age had a wife and a daughter alive at the time when he executed a will.
It appears that numberprevious will was executed by him.
The order recorded by Mathur J., on that date states interalia Considering that the deceased died about 2 1/2 years after the execution of the alleged will, there can be numbercontroversy in that the will if, genuine, was executed at a time the deceased was in a sound disposing companydition.
It was further claimed that Moonga Devi the widow of Chhangur Sahu was the sole heir and was entitled to claim all the properties.
He was number cross examined by Shri V.P. Mishra on behalf of his clients, namely, the present appellants.
If the parties desire the signatures and thumb marks to be sent to an expert, they should make an application within the above periods On October 3, 1966 Shri V.P. Mishra made a statement that the due execution of the will in question was numberlonger challenged.
On September 30, 1965 Radha Ballab respondent filed an application for the grant of probate of the aforesaid will in the Allahabad High Court.
On October 4, 1966 a letter was sent by the clerk of Shri V.P. Mishra to one of the appellants.
The caveat was tiled through Shri V.P. Mishra Advocate who had apparently been engaged by the mother and the daughter to represent their case.
An affidavit of Sumitra Devi was olso filed alongwith the Caveat.
The will was attested by two witnesses, Ram Charan and Sankatha Prasad Singh.
After her death Radha Ballab respondent before us, who is stated to be a relation of the testator and who was appointed executor of the will was to get the properties companyered by the will.
This order was brief order in which after stating what was already been reproduced earlier it was observed that the statement of the Advocate was number based upon incorrect facts.
It was provided that the executor was to look after the maintenance of Sundari Devi the sister of Radha Ballab and also perform the marriage of her daughter.
He made numberbequests whatsoever in favour of his daughter Sumitra Devi.
It was got registered and was entered in the registration book on May 12, 1960.
By this will Chhangur Sahu left a life interest to his wife in the properties.
On January 9, 1966 a caveat was filed on behalf of the present appellants, namely, the widow of Chhangur Sahu and his daughter Sumitra Devi.
These letters are reproduced below Allahabad.
On that date Shri V.P. Mishra made a statement that the deceased was in a sound mental companydition in May 1960 and hence the validity of the will was number being challenged on the ground that the deceased was number in a sound disposing mind.
In the affidavit it was stated that Sumitra Devi along with her mother had been in possession of the properties of Chhangur Sahu since his death and that the will set up by Radha Ballab was number a genuine document and did number companyfer any right or title on him.
On April 11, 1967 the case was adjourned to July 10, 1967.
On January 17, 1966 an order was made by the High Court companyverting the probate proceedings into a suit which was fixed for January 31, 1966 for framing issues.
As it had been made on instructions received by him the parties were bound by it.
One month allowed to the parties to file documentary evidence with regard to admitted signatures and thumb marks of the deceased.
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a matter relating to probate of a will dated May 10, 1960 alleged to have been executed by Chhangur Sahu, a resident of Varanasi City, who owned companysiderable moveable and immoveable properties.
