Judgment P. K. Deb, J. 1. Both these appeals have been heard analogously as they arise out of the same judgment and order and the parties in the appeal are also same and similar. 2. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants above named under Sec.299 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against the order dated 6-2-1989 passed by Shri B. Ram, the then 1st Additional District judge, Palamau, in Probate (Title) Suit no.1 of 1989 granting probate in favour of the applicant-plaintiff-respondents no.1 to 4 in both the appeals in respect of a Will said to have been executed and registered on 8-5-1972 by late Bageshwari chaubey. 3. Before proceeding with the discussions in the appeals, the genealogy is required to be mentioned. The testator bageshwari Chaubey had one son, namely, Suresh Dutt Chaubey and one daughter Kaushalya Devi who happens to be the proforma respondent No.5 in the case. Suresh Dutt Chaubey, predeceased Bageshwari Chaubey, who died sometime in January, 1969. In course of his life time, he married four times. His wives are Sanjha, since deceased, mother of appellant No.2, sumitra, appellant No.1, Bhagmani devi, sole appellant in M. A. No.50 of 1989 (R) and another wife whose name had not been disclosed in course of the proceeding. Bageshwari Chaubeys daughter Kaushalya Devi has four sons who are respondents No.1 to 4 who happened to be the beneficiaries of the Will while respondent No. l Upendra Nath pandey was the executor of the will of bageshwari Chaubey. The Will (Ext.1)was executed and registered at Palamau on 8-5-1972. At the time of execution of the Will, Bageshwari Chaubey was an old man of 90 years. After three years of the execution of the Will, he died on 16-7-1975. In the Will (Ext.1) he did not mention regarding the properties to be bequeathed. It was only mentioned that whatever properties would be left by him at the time of death would go to the beneficiaries i. e. the grand sons through her daughter Kaushalya Devi. During the life time of Bageshwari Chaubey, his grand-daughter Radhika through his pre-dcceased son Suresh Dutt Chaubey filed partition Suit No.14 of 1971, plaint of which has been marked as Ext.7 in the case. In that partition suit, bageshwari Chaubey contested the suit by filing written statement. During the life time of Bageshwari Chaubey, his grand-daughter Radhika through his pre-dcceased son Suresh Dutt Chaubey filed partition Suit No.14 of 1971, plaint of which has been marked as Ext.7 in the case. In that partition suit, bageshwari Chaubey contested the suit by filing written statement. In that suit, radhika Devi demanded/claimed half share in the joint family property. Once probate case was decreed ex-parte when proper parties were not made but then on an application being made by the appellants, the ex-parte probate order was revoked and then it was contested by filing separate written statement by the appellants. After the written statements were filed, the probate proceedings were proceeded as regular title suit. Although in the will (Ext.1) no description of the property was mentioned, yet in the Schedule of the probate petition, the respondents-plaintiff had given detailed accounts of the properties left by the testator. The main ground of contest on the registered Will was that the testator Bageshwari Chaubey was an old ailing man and he was under the influence of the beneficiaries i. e. the plaintiff- respondents and they made all efforts to get the Will executed in their favour. Both the parties adduced evidence. The Will was found to be a genuine one by the learned Court below as the same was executed by the testator in presence of the attesing witnesses who were also not in any way related to the testator and the said Will was registered on the very date in the Sub-Registry office at Palamau. 4. Although a feable attempt was made by Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants regarding the genuinity of the Will stating that the testator was an old man and he might not be in a position of understanding and under the influence of the plaintiff-respondents, he had executed the Will but nothing could be brought on record regarding the ingenuinity of the Will or any suspicious circumstances at the time of execution of the Will. Only because the plaintiff-respondents were present at the time of execution of the Will, it cannot be said that the Will was executed, under any undue influence of the plaintiff-respondents. In this connection, Mr. Only because the plaintiff-respondents were present at the time of execution of the Will, it cannot be said that the Will was executed, under any undue influence of the plaintiff-respondents. In this connection, Mr. Manjul Prasad, appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents have referred to two judgments of this Court in the case of thakur Rai V/s. Ram Brichh Rai, 1970 pljr 152 and Bhola Singh V/s. Kedar nath Singh and others, 1970 PLJR 342. 5. It is settled principle of law that if the Will is executed by the executor on due attestation then the genuinity of the same cannot be questioned more so, if the Will is a registered one. If there is any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will preponderance must prevail over the said suspicion. In the present case except the fact that the testator was an old man and that the plaintiff-respondents were present at the time of execution of the Will, it cannot be said that there are suspicious circumstances in execution of the Will by the testator. The executor was definitely an old man but even after the execution of the Will, he lived for three years more and just before execution of the Will, he was maintaining his property as Karta of the joint co-par-cenery family and he even contested the partition suit filed by his grand daughter radhika Devi. Thus from the circumstances it could be made clear that the executor was in proper sense at the time of execution of the Will when no undue influence or coercion can be shown from the side of the plaintiff-respondents. Thus, at the time of execution of the Will it cannot be said to have influenced the mind of an old man beqeathing the property in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. So regarding the genuinity of the will and its proper and legal execution, practically no evidence was there although very many attempts were taken from the side of the appellants to discard the Will, but they could not be able to do so. The learned Court below has considered each and evey evidence of the parties and then arrived at his conclusion. The learned Court below has considered each and evey evidence of the parties and then arrived at his conclusion. On independent scrutiny also on the evidence brought on record, I am of the same view as expressed by the learned Court below that the Will was genuine one being executed by the testator Bageshwari chaubey and then registered it. On this point, regarding the genuinity of the will, all the submissions made by Mr. N. K. Prasad have got no force and hence rejected. 6. Regarding the property inserted in the petition of probate, there remains some valid objections from the side of the appellants defendants. It is the case of the appellants that on 16-10-1946, long before the execution of the will and when the testator was at his prime age had made settlement of some lands in favour of his two daughters-in-laws, namely Sumitra Devi and Sanjha vide Ext. C dated 16-10-1946 and as such, according to the appellants, those properties which had been settled in favour of Sumitra and Sanjha by the testator could not remain as his property at the time of his death and as such those properties could not be bequeathed in favour of the beneficiaries of the Will but those properties had also been included within the Schedule of the probate petition. Another submission is that during the life time of the executor vide Ext. E dated 8-7-1969 some properties had been gifted away to appellant no.1 Sumitra Devi and those properties on the basis of the gift had been accepted by Sumitra Devi and remained in her possession and title but those properties had also been mentioned within the Schedule of the probate petiton. 7. These objections have been raised specifically in the probate proceedings and the learned Court below did not consider those facts as it was not within the jurisdiction of the probate court to enter into the title regarding the beneficiaries or the objectors. 7. These objections have been raised specifically in the probate proceedings and the learned Court below did not consider those facts as it was not within the jurisdiction of the probate court to enter into the title regarding the beneficiaries or the objectors. In this connection, reference may be made in the case of Ishwarideo narain singh V/s. Smt. Kamla Devi, AIR 1954 supreme Court 280, wherein it was held that "the Court of Probate is only concerned with the questions as to whether the document put forward as the last will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequeath is good or bad is not within the purview of the probate Court. "thus whether a particular property had gone in favour of the beneficiaries on bequeathing is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. The Probate Court is not in a position to decide that fact and as such the said objection raised from the side of the appellants-defendants had not been considered by the Probate Court rightly. 8. Another legal question had been raised by Mr. N. K. Prasad although the same was not specifically pleaded or evidenced before the Court below. Admittedly the parties including the testator Bageshwari Chaubey were governed by the Mitakshara School of hindu Law and accordingly his son suresh Dutt Chaubey is definitely by birth became the coparcener of the joint family as it has been specifically submitted that the property which has been included in the probate petition was the ancestral property of the testator Bageshwari Chaubey inferring lightly that Suresh Dutt Chaubey was a coparcener and while Bageshwari chaubey being the eldest member must have been the Karta of the joint family property. Suresh Dutt Chaubey predeceased Bageshwari Chaubey but his death was after coming into force of the hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which the famale heirs also had been accrued of the right of inheritance of the immovable property. Suresh Dutt Chaubey predeceased Bageshwari Chaubey but his death was after coming into force of the hindu Succession Act, 1956, by which the famale heirs also had been accrued of the right of inheritance of the immovable property. Under Sec.6 of the hindu Succession Act, if a coparcener dies after 1956 then by proviso of that section, even the female heirs are entitled to inherit the share of their predecessor coparcener to the extent which he would have been entitled to if there was partition before the death of the coparcener of the joint property. Mr. N. K. Prasad had further submitted by referring to a decision of the supreme Court in the case of Gurupad khandappa Magdum V/s. Hirabai Khandappa magdum and others, AIR 1978 supreme Court 1239 that Explanation 1 of Sec.6 and its proviso thereof indicates not only deemed coparcener should be considered as being received by him at the time of death by way of partition in the coparcenery joint property and the same share would be devolved to his female heirs not by survivorship but by inheritance. According to Mr. N. M. Prasad, Suresh Dutt chaubey at the time of his death left behind two wives, namely, Sumitra Devi and Bhagmati Devi, and one daughter through pre- deceased wife Sanjha Devi. So by inheritance, Radhika Devi and two wives of Suresh Dutt Chaubey would inherit his share on his death in the year 1969 by right of inheritance half and half i. e. one half to Radhika devi and another half to two step mothers. Thus, according to Mr. Prasad, radhika Devi had rightly filed partition suit regarding her share in the property as she, definitely by operation of law, would get share in the coparcenery property and, as such, the appellants by inheritance of Suresh Dutt Chaubey have a right of share in the coparcenery property which again had been included in the probate petition. This fact has not been challenged by Mr. Manjul Prasad but his submission was that no evidence has been adduced to that effect before the learned Court below although there was some such pleading in the written statement filed. This is a matter of operation of law and the question of pleading or non-pleading is of no avail and evidence to the effect of operation of law has got no bearing. 9. This is a matter of operation of law and the question of pleading or non-pleading is of no avail and evidence to the effect of operation of law has got no bearing. 9. As I have mentioned earlier that probate Court is not a Court of deciding the title of the interested parties, the inclusion of the properties in the probate would not in any way take away the title of the parties and as such grant of probate would in no way stand as barrier for claim of the respective parties regarding there title over some of the properties which were inlcuded in the probate. Granting of probate is in respect of the will and in the will there was no property mentioned and the properties have been included in the probate petition by the plaintiffs-respondents on the basis of the list of the properties given by Radhika Devi in her partition suit and from the ceiling proceedings which were going on against the testator Bageshwari chaubey. The applicant-plaintiffs-respondents were also not sure as to whcih of the properties were practically remained bequeathed at the time of death of the testator Bageshwari chaubey, If the interested parties or the appellants had any title over any of the properties which were included in the probate proceeding, they shall always be at liberty to raise their claims before the executor if no redressed before the appropriate civil Court. 10. With the observation and direction, both the appeals are rejected having no force but in the circumstances of the case no order as to costs. Appeals Dismissed.