1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 150 of 2013 Shesh Nath Tiwari, S/o Late Hiranandan Nath Tiwari, R/o Mohalla Kokar, P.O. Kokar & P.S. Sadar, District, Ranchi .... .... Objector Versus 1. Smt. Sangita Tiwari, W/o Amrit Kishore Nath Tiwari, R/o Railway Colony, P.O & P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi. 2. Amrit Kishore Nath Tiwari, S/o Late Hira Nandan Nath Tiwari, R/o Railway Colony, P.O & P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi. 3. Triyogi Nath Tiwari, S/o Late Hira Nandan Nath Tiwari R/o Koharwalia, P.O. and P.S. Guthni, District-Siwan (Bihar). 4. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Objector : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Nandan Prasad, Advocate ------ Order No. 14 / Dated : 05.03.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Objector is in appeal against the grant of probate in favour of the respondent no. 1 in Probate Case No. 93 of 2008/ T.S. 3/2010. Respondent no. 1 filed application for probate with respect to the Will executed by Hiranandan Nath Tiwari on 11.06.2002 in her favour, who happened to be her father-in-law. 2. The probate application was contested by the appellant (Shesh Nath Tiwari) who is the son of the testator and the brother-in-law (Devar) of the applicant. 3. As per the case of the appellant-opposite parties, no Will was executed and he had filed Title Suit No. 166 of 2004 with respect to the Schedule property. The property was joint family property and testator had no exclusive right to bequeath it in favour of the applicant. 4. Learned Probate Court framed the following issues: - I. Whether the probate petition as brought was maintainable? II. Whether the Will was dated 11.06.2012 said to be executed by late Hiranandan Nath Tiwary was the last Will of the testator? III. Whether the Will as said was a valid and genuine document, and 2 fit to be probated? 5. Learned Probate Court by the impugned order has granted probate of Will which is under challenge in the instant appeal. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the testator was not in a fit and sound state of mind to have executed the Will, and it was procured by the petitioner in collusion and in connivance with her husband by practicing fraud and undue influence. Further, the original title deed of the suit property was in possession and custody of appellant/opposite party. 7. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that the question of title is beyond consideration of Probate Court and the testator had estranged relationship with the appellant which will be evident from the fact that they were in litigating term in Title Suit No. 166 of 2004 filed by the appellant against the testator. Further, this said suit has already been dismissed. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the record of the case, it is evident that the appellant was not even living with the testator which has come in para 21 of the cross-examination of the appellant, wherein he stated that he had been separated with his father since last 10 years. Further, he had also admitted that in para 25 learned court below has declared that the property belonged to a testator. Attesting witnesses have proved the Will. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -