1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 522 OF 2010 Parasram S/o Gotiram Uchit .. APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri R.L. Joshi, Advocate h/f A.P. Deshpande, Advocate for appellant Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 Shri K.C. Sant, for respondent No. 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22nd November, 2010. PER COURT : At the request of learned Counsel for respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing. I have gone through the record and proceedings. 2. The present respondent No. 2 had filed petition for probate, under Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act, in respect of the will executed by Gotiram Baba dated 8th August, 1989. 2 The said will is a registered will. The said Gotiram Baba expired on 15th November, 2002, the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, allowed the application filed by the present respondent NO. 2 and granted probate in favour of present respondent No. 2, in respect of the said will. The present appellant who was non-applicant No. 2 has preferred the present appeal against the said Judgment and Decree. 3. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that will is not proved as is required under the law. The learned Counsel contended that the agricultural lands are exempted from the operation of probate or letter of administration, and there was no necessity of exercising jurisdiction under Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act. The learned Counsel further contended that the Court below, has not considered the fact that the will was got executed in suspicious circumstances, under duress and undue influence. The said will is not genuine will. The learned Counsel further contended that will is not duly proved, as the 3 second attesting witness has not supported the respondent No. 2. He further contended that there is no notification issued by the State under Section 264(2) of the Indian Succession Act, conferring jurisdiction to receive application or grant of applicant for probate. 4. Per contra, Shri Sant, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that the present appellant has not stepped into the witness box to bring forth the record of alleged suspicious circumstances. The learned Counsel further contended that the will has been proved by the evidence of attesting witness, and the said evidence has not been shattered in the cross-examination. The question of jurisdiction of the Trial Court to issue the probate was the subject matter of consideration before this Court in First Appeal No. 219/2006. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide Judgment dated 30th April, 2008, has categorically held that the Trial Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the probate application. In the light of the same, the said issue has attained finality and cannot 4 be gone into. 5. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence of the attesting witness and on evaluating the evidence of the witness has come to the conclusion that the will was duly executed by Gotiram Baba. The will in question is also a registered will, it will have a high evidential value. 6. Taking into above conspectus of the matter, it is seen that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence, even as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The examination of one witness to prove the will is sufficient and the said burden has been discharged by the appellant. The evidence of the respondent No. 1 and his witness has not been shattered in cross examination. The appellant has not stepped into the witness box, nor has led any evidence to substantiate his say. 7. In the light of the above, no error is committed by the Court below, the First Appeal, 5 as such is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 522.10FA/2211.10