In this application, the appellant prayed for granting letters of administration with the Will annexed in her favour.
Shri R.K. Barunisana Singh, who is the proforma respondent in the appeal, is the husband of Binodini.
Background facts as numbered by the High Court are as follows Shri Yumnam Joykumar Singh, Smt.
It is to be numbered that in the proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge the following three issues were framed.
The testatrix was an old and ill lady.
Though he claimed that he had reached the house of said Gouramani Singh on being summoned, there was numberody present when he had gone there.
16/2720 measuring 53 acres of patta No.
He also did number state that said Yumnam Gouramani Singh put his signature on the document or if the said Gouramani Singh said anything about his signature or mark having been put on the document.
It was also stated that on the alleged date of execution of the will i.e. 13.8.1986, the said Yumnam Gouramani Singh was staying in U.P. and number in Imphal.
He did number say anything about presence of any another person as an attesting witness in respect of any document by the said Yumnam Gouramani Singh.
Loitongbam Ningol Yumnam Ongbi Ibeyaima Devi, Yumnam Raynold Singh and Kumari Yumnam Rina alias Riya Devi, are widow, son and daughter respectively of late Yumnam Birmani Singh, son of the said late Yumnam Gouramani Singh.
It was submitted that there was numberexecution of a will much less in accordance with law.
Yumnam Ongbi Lalitabi Devi, is the widow of the said late Yumnam Gouramani Singh.
Yumnam Ningol Harijabam Ongbi Binodkumari Devi, who is the respondent No.2 in this appeal, is a daughter of late Gouramani respondent.
Whether late Yumnam Gouramani Singh left behind a Will dated 13.8.1986 bequeathing the plot of land under C.S. Dag No.
6, 7 and proforma respondent No.8 opposed the application by filing a written statement wherein they denied the alleged due execution of the will.
Yumnam Ningol Binodini Dcvi, who are the respondents, are the son and daughters of late Yumnam Gouramani Singh.
Appellant filed an application alleging that her father in law Yumnam Gouramani Singh duly executed his last will on 13 8 86 in accordance with law in presence of two attesting witnesses bequeathing the plot of land under C.S. Dag No.
304 of Unit A 1, Imphal Municipality at Thangal Bazar along with building standing thereon in her favour.
Respondent 1 was a student at the relevant time.
And also for the discussion, observations and reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that L Y. Gouramani Singh had executed the will Ext.
On the other hand, the plaintiff Respondent 1 and his father being disciple of her guru were in a position to dominate her mental process.
Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi, who is the appellant in this appeal, is the widow of late Yumnam Mani Singh, son of the said late Yumnam Gouramani Singh, Smt.
PW 2 was number even having knowledge about the death of the alleged executor more than 14 years prior to the date of his giving evidence.
14/92/19 of 2003.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
304 A of Unit A 1 Imphal Municipality to the petitioner Yumnam Tampha Ibema Devi?
Yumnam Ningol Khumanthem Ongbi Bijanbala and Smt.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court in the First Appeal by the respondents.
It was also alleged that there were suspicious circumstances which ought to be companysidered before the will companyld be accepted as genuine.
16/2720 measuring 053 acres of Patta No.
Before the High Court challenge was to the order passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Manipur East, Imphal, in Original Probate Petition No.
He stated that he had put the signature without understanding as to why he was putting his signature and he did number know the nature of the document on which he had put his signature.
It appears that by judgment and order dated 9.4.2004 the learned Additional District Judge accepted the prayer and directed as follows Heard Learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant before the High Court and respondent Nos.
