[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 623/1999 RAM RAGHUNATH B. MANTRI Vs. PAWAN KUMAR ORS. Date: 07.01.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Madan Meena for Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Pareek for the respondents. **** This civil misc. appeal under Section 384(1) of the Indian Sucession Act, 1925 is directed against the order dated 31.10.1998 passed by the District Judge, Kota (for short 'the trial Court' herein after) granting probate of will in favour of the respondent Pawan Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and respondents Smt. Ratan Devi and Shri Omprakash. Before the trial Court the appellant was objector. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and relevant material available on record. Respondent Pawan Kumar and three others named above, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act' herein after) before the trial Court on the ground that [2] Pooranmal executed a will during his life time on 10.04.1985 in their favour in respect of the property mentioned in the probate application and the order impugned, however, Pooranmal died on 20.05.1985 at Kota and, therefore, by virtue of will executed in favour of respondent Pawan Kumar and three others, they became owner of the property which is subject matter of the will and sought grant of probate. Near relatives of deceased Pooranmal namely Mohanlal, Ghisi Bai and Smt. Chandrakala @ Murti Bai were impleaded as party and the near relatives did not object execution of will in favour of applicant Pawan Kumar and three others, however, the appellant who claimed to be tenant in the property subject matter of the will, appeared as objector and filed written objection and raised the issue of valuation of the property. The value of property which is subject matter of the will, was determined by the Collector (Stamp), Kota to the extent of Rs. 7,48,150/- arrounding at Rs. 7,50,000/-. On appreciation of the material available on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that valuation determined by the Collector (Stamp), Kota is just and proper and was accepted. Before the trial Court, the appellant failed to lead any other evidence to establish that the property which is subject matter of [3] the will is valuing more than Rs. 7,50,000/-. Even otherwise, the appellant has no interest in the property and does not claim the property which is subject matter of the will and being a tenant simply raised the issue of valuation. The value has already been determined by the Collector (Stamp), Kota which cannot said to be contrary to the provisions of law. The trial Court did not find any error in determination of valuation and the fact of will was found to have been executed by deceased Pooranmal in sound disposing conditions in favour of applicant Pawan Kumar and three others and near relatives of the deceased did not object grant of probate and allowing the application for grant of probate. In my view, the order impugned is just and proper. I do not find any illegality or error in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR),J. /KKC/ [4] S.B. CIVIL STAY APPLICATION NO. 1229/1999 IN S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 623/1999 RAM RAGHUNATH B. MANTRI Vs. PAWAN KUMAR ORS. Date: 07.01.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Madan Meena for Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Pareek for the respondents. **** As the appeal has been dismissed, the stay application also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR),J. /KKC/