Judgment P. K. Sarkar, J. 1. This first appeal filed under Sec.299 of the Indian Succession act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th December, 1992 passed by shri Anant Prasad Srivastava, Judicial commissioner Ranchi, in Probate Case No.59 of 1986 whereby the learned court below allowed the same. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal is as follows : Smt. Uma Kumari Devi and Smt. Parvafi Kumari Devi who are the own sisters had filed the probate case for grant of probate with reference to the last Will and testament executed on 21.1.1978 by Smt. Lalin Madan kumari Devi widow of late Balbhadra Nath sahdeo, the mother of both petitioners-sisters. It is further contended that Smt. Lalin Madan kumari Devi (executant of the Will) got the properties, subject matter of the Will from her father at the time of her marriage as Sindurtari property and thus became the exclusive owner of the property. She executed the aforementioned will in presence of three witnesses, namely, Shri Chandru Singh of Village Baridih, p. S. Dhruwa, District Ranchi, Lal Shyam Sunder nath Sahdeo, an Advocate of Ranchi and shri Bodhan Lohar of Ratu Raod, Ranchi. The will was registered in the Sub Registry Office at Ranchi. It is further stated that the said Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi died on 29.6.1998 in Village Baridih, P. S. Dhruwa, District Ranchi that is her usual place of residence. It is further submitted that the said executant died leaving behind the following near relatives, namely, lal Bhuneshwar Nath Sahdeo, Lal Rajeshwar nath Sahdeo and Lal Kameshwar Nath Sahdeo all sons of late Jatindra Nath Sahdeo of Village hesag, P. S. Hatia, District Ranchi. The appellants have also claimed that there is no impediment under the provision of the Indian succession Act or under the provision of any other enactment for which probate cannot be granted. Hence, they have prayed that probate may be granted in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint. 3. Objections were filed on behalf of the objectors, namely, Lal Bhuneshwar Nath sahdeo, Lal Rajeshwar Nath Sahdeo and Lal kameshwar Nath Sahdeo against the grant of probate in favour of the appellants. The objectors submitted that Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari devi was not given the lands in question by her father. The same were granted to her by her late husband Balbhadra Nath Sahdeo. The objectors submitted that Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari devi was not given the lands in question by her father. The same were granted to her by her late husband Balbhadra Nath Sahdeo. Lal balbhadra, Nath Sahdeo died leaving behind the only son Lal Jatindra Nath Sahdeo, late father of these objectors and his second married wife the said Lalin Madan Kumari Devi as the sole heirs who came in possession of the lands including the suit lands. Thus the objectors are the grand sons of Lalin Madan Kumari devi, the mothers of the appellants. Thus the transfer of the land by Lal Balbhadra Nath sahdeo in favour of Lalin Madan Kumari Devi, the second wife, as stated in the probate petition, is illegal and void. It is further contended that Lalin Madan Kumari Devis father never given any lands to her during the marriage as sindurtari property since that property belonged to Lal Balbhadra Nath Sahdeo. The appellants are also having their shares jointly with the respondents. It is further stated that the Will alleged to have been executed by the executant was done through coercion, fraud and undue influence to defeat the rights of the legal heirs. 4. It appears that subsequently, the applicant-petitioner No.1 (Smt. Uma Kumari Devi)filed a petition on 7.1.1988 before the lower court to the effect that she has learnt that the landed property detailed in the petition was acquired by the State of Bihar in the land acquisition proceeding on 10.6.1991 another petition was filed on behalf of Smt. Bhargavi devi, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Smt. Chanchala devi, Smt. Shila Devi and Kumari Vijoy Laxmi sahdeo (appellants. No.4 to 8) to add them as opposite parties. They gave a genealogical table in the petition showing their relationship. According to them, the applicant-respondent no.2 are the daughters from the second wife of Lal Balbhadra Nath Sahdeo. Smt. Bhargavi devi (objecter-defendant) is the step-sister-in-law of the applicants and the rest of the objectors (respondents No.6 to 8) are the daughters of the applicants step brother. These defendants took different pleas in their petition dated 10.6.1991 regarding non-joinder of the necessary party etc. , and claimed that they are also having shares in the properties. They had also stated that the executant Lalin Madan kurnari Devi was a chronic patient of Asthama. She died at the age of 84 years and she was bed ridden for five years. , and claimed that they are also having shares in the properties. They had also stated that the executant Lalin Madan kurnari Devi was a chronic patient of Asthama. She died at the age of 84 years and she was bed ridden for five years. According to them, she had lost sense of understanding and appreciation of things, hence, the Will in question was. brought into existence after playing fraud and coercion on her. A rejoinder to the said petition dated 10.6.1991 was filed on behalf of the petitioners-respondents. Accordingly to the respondents; the genealogy given in the petition dated 10.6.1991 is incorrect. According to the respondents, the objectors of the petition dated 10.6.1991 are the sons and daughters of Lal Balbhadra Nath Sahdeo from the first wife and they are not directly related to the respondents-petitioners and they have got no interest in the property. However, they were also made parties in the probate case. 5. The following issues were framed after recast for disposal of the probate case : " (i) Is the application for probate maintainable? (ii) Whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of the deceased Lalin Madan kumari Devi dated 21.1.1978 was duly executed and attested in accordance with law? (iii) Whether at the time of execution of the Will in question the testator lalin Madan Kumari Devi had sound disposing mind? (iv) Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of probate as prayed? (v) To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the petitioners entitled?" 6. Both the parties adduced evidence and proved certain papers. The learned Judicial commissioner; Ranchi, after considering the evidence, oral and documentary, as adduced by the parties, allowed the probate case in terms of the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1992. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed. 7. Both the parties adduced evidence and proved certain papers. The learned Judicial commissioner; Ranchi, after considering the evidence, oral and documentary, as adduced by the parties, allowed the probate case in terms of the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1992. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal as appears on the basis of the submissions of both the parties is : whether the learned lower court while passing the aforesaid order properly considered the different aspects of the case, namely, the ownership of the property by the executent and also regarding the merit of the execution of the Will by the executent that is to say whether the executent the Will in full sense and without any coercion of misrepresentation of the facts and the said Will was properly/validly presented before the District Sub-Registrar for registration. 8. Mr. T. N. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on 19.7.1939, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, observed in Probate Case No.59 of 1986 that though both the parties are contesting the case, it appears that it is still continuing as miscellaneous case, hence, he ordered that the case be registered as a suit and also for settlement of issues. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that thereafter issues were settled and the case progressed as a regular title suit. It is further submitted that since the case was progressing as regular title suit, the appellants-objectors became entitled to get a copy of the registered Will which is a part of the probate case. However, no copy was given to him, so he could not get an opportunity to go through the Will to file any objection on the same and thus his case was prejudiced for the said act. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a bench of this court in the case of Bindeshwari pandey V/s. Kan Devi and Ors, wherein it is held that : "copy of a Will cannot be granted to an objector on his merely entering appearance in the proceeding. The objector cannot be said to be entitled to take a certified copy of the Will in question until and unless he filed a caveat and the probate court on examining the objection decides to convert the proceeding into a regular title suit. The objector cannot be said to be entitled to take a certified copy of the Will in question until and unless he filed a caveat and the probate court on examining the objection decides to convert the proceeding into a regular title suit. " Learned counsel, therefore, submits that since this probate application was converted into a regular title suit, he became entitled for a copy of the Will. Learned counsel for the respondents admits the legal position that after the suit was registered as a regular title suit, the appellants-objectors were entitled to get a certified copy of the Will in question as decided in the decision cited by the appellants but the facts of the present case is some what different. The appellants did not file any application or made any submission Before the court concerned for a copy of the said Will or for a certified copy of the said Will. Thus, only because the Court suo motu did not order for supply of a copy of the Will, it cannot be observed that the appellants were prejudiced and on that ground alone, the entire probate case should be dismissed. Moreover, the registered will was deposited in the court and was kept in a sealed cover before the court and not in possession of the plaintiffs-respondents and thus, the appellants-objectors could have prayed before the court for examination of the will at any time. Thus the laches on the part of the appellants also contributed in his inability to get a copy and cannot be attributed against the respondents. 9. I have carefully gone through the submissions of both the parties. It is true that by registering a case as regular title suit, the appellants became entitled for a copy of the Will which was admittedly in the custody of the court, so the appellants could have made a prayer before the court for inspection of the will or for a copy of the same and thus, at this stage, they cannot make them entitled for reversal of the impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also took objection against the order stating that no issue on the point that the executant got lands at the time of marriage as Sindurtari property or the lands were granted through khar-Poshto the original owner and thus making the executant as exclusive owner of the property. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also took objection against the order stating that no issue on the point that the executant got lands at the time of marriage as Sindurtari property or the lands were granted through khar-Poshto the original owner and thus making the executant as exclusive owner of the property. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs-petitioners also did not examine any witness on the aforesaid points. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on the point of ownership of the lands by the executent. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents in reply to the aforesaid assertion of the appellants has stated that the testamentary court is not required to enquire into the title of the property or share of the parties. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents-opposite parties placed a decision of our court in the case of Udheshwar Singh and Anr. V/s. Smt. Runa Devi and Ors. From the said decision, it has been held that : "in an application for grant of probate, the court has no jurisdiction to enquire into the nature of the rights of the testator in the property covered by the Will. The question as to whether the testatrix sundermani Devi has any right in relation to the property in question or not, thus could not have been gone into by the learned counsel below. This court is not concerned with the title of Sundarrnani Devi in the property nor this court is concerned with as to whether by reason of the Will, the opposite party has derived any right, title and interest or not. Such a pure question of title can only be considered in an appropriate suit by a competent civil court and not by a testamentary court in view of the settled principle of law, as noticed hereinbefore. " From the aforesaid observation of this court it will appea; that the testamentary court is not required to enter into the right of the parties and any such dispute can be considered in an appropriate suit by the competent civil court. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chiranji lal Shrilal Goenka V/s. Jasjit Singh and Ors. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chiranji lal Shrilal Goenka V/s. Jasjit Singh and Ors. , it is held that "the Succession Act is a self contained code insofar as the question of making an application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the Probate court. This is clearly manifested in the fascule of the provision of the Act. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the Will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid exeuction of the will. Thus it does no more than establish the factum of the Will and the legal character of the executor. Probate Court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself. " In that view of the matter it is submitted that it was not necessary for the court below to frame issue on the point how the executant became owner of the land in question and the nature of the lands. Those questions are to be decided by the competent Civil Court in an appropriate case if the other parties have any objection to it. Thus, it was beyond the competence of the court below to frame an issue on the aforesaid facts. 12. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that they have filed Khatian of Khewat No.3 of Mauza baridih to show that Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari was the landlord. From the record of the lower court, it will also appear that a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that they came to know about the acquisition of certain properties which was the subject matter of the probate case by the Government of bihar and a notification to that effect has been issued in Ranchi Zila Gazette and prayed that the Government may be restrained from distributing the said land till the decision is made by the Probate Court and, accordingly, an order to that effect was passed on 7.1.1988. This also shows that the properties included in the probate belonged to the executent. 13. This also shows that the properties included in the probate belonged to the executent. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken a plea that from the evidence of pw 1 it will appear that he presented the Will in the office of the District Sub-Registrar for registration. This is a clear violation of Section 32 of the Registration Act and in this connection he has relied on two decisions, in the case of Kishore Chandra V/s. Ganesh Prasad and ma Shew Mya V/s. Maung Ho Hnaung. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the appellants have contended that the executant used to suffer from serious ailment and was not in a position to execute the will in the period it has been executed. She was seriously ill with different diseases and were treated by the doctors. Thus she was not in good health and mental condition and the respondents-plaintiffs get the Will executed by playing fraud, coercion and by making false representation. The respondents-plaintiffs have, however, disputed the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. 14. The petitioners-respondents have examined four witnesses in this case out of whom APW 1 Madan Lohar is one of the attesting witnesses of the Will. He has stated that in 1965, he was working as Pleaders clerk in the Civil Court, Ranchi and was working under shri Lal Shyam Sunder Nath Sahdeo, who is since dead. APW 1 has further stated that he knew Lalin Madan Kumari Devi of Baridih, ps. Hatia, Ranchi. She came to their office for executing the Will in the year 1978. The will is in a sealed cover and is in the safe custody of the Court. The aforesaid Will was executed in favour of Uma Kumari Devi and parvati Kumari Devi. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi signed the Will on the last page in his presence which he has identified and marked as ext 1. He has further stated that he also signed on the same page which has been marked as ext.1/1. He has further stated that in all the pages, Lalin Madan Kumari Devi has signed which has proved and marked as Exts.1/2 and 1/3 A. P. W.1 has also stated that when the Will was executed by the executant, she was in full sense and she was not suffering with any type of diseases. He has further stated that in all the pages, Lalin Madan Kumari Devi has signed which has proved and marked as Exts.1/2 and 1/3 A. P. W.1 has also stated that when the Will was executed by the executant, she was in full sense and she was not suffering with any type of diseases. A. P. W.2 is Chandru singh, one of the attesting witnesses of the will. He has also identified the signature of the executant Lalin Madan Kumari Devi in three pages of the Will which was signed in his presence. He has also stated that he has also signed on Will as a witness. He has proved his signature which is Ext.1/4. He has also stated that when the Will was executed, Lalin Madan kumari Devi was in good health and was not ailing. She signed on the Will withe full consciousness. A. P. W.3 (Moti Lal) is a formal witness who has proved Ext.2, the Will. He has also stated that the Will was typed in his presence by Madan Babu. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the Will. A. P. W.4 is Uma kumari Devi, respondent No.1 plaintiff in the case. She has stated that Lalin Madan Kumari devi was her mother. She is dead now. Her mother executed the Will in her life-time. When the Will was executed, the executant was in her good health and was not ailing and executed the will voluntrily. She had also full power of understanding. She has identified Ext.2. 15. Thus, out of four A. P. Ws. , A. P. W.4 is one of the respondents. A. P. Ws 1 and 2 are the attesting witnesses of the Will and from their evidence, it is clear that the other attesting witness Lal Shyam Sunder Nath Sahdeo, advocate is also dead. Thus, the Ext.2 have been duly proved by these attesting witnesses. A. P. W.3 is a formal witness. From the evidence of A. P. Ws.1, 2 and 4, it appears that when the Will was executed, the executant was in sound health and mental condition and it was executed by her voluntarily. Thus, the Ext.2 have been duly proved by these attesting witnesses. A. P. W.3 is a formal witness. From the evidence of A. P. Ws.1, 2 and 4, it appears that when the Will was executed, the executant was in sound health and mental condition and it was executed by her voluntarily. Ext.1/1 shows that one of the attesting witnesses A. P. W.1 has also made an endorsement that Lalin madan Kumari Devi executed the Will in their presence and told them that this is her last Will and on her request, all the witnesses signed on it. 16. The opposite parties also examined seven witnesses in this case, out of them P. W.7 dr. Jwala Prasad was examined and he has stated that the executant was ill. He has also stated that he cannot say which portion of Lalin madan Kumar Devi suffered from paralitic stroke. Thus, this witness has not stated anything by which it can be assumed that Lalin madan Kumari Devi was not in a position to understand things and was misrepresented and by practising fraud the Will was executed. Since paralitic stroke was not on the right hand or on the other portion of the body including her head, there is no reason why she will not be in a position to execute the Will and put her signature on it. None of the witnesses has stated about the specific disease of the executant which made her unable to understand or made her of unsound mind. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the evidence stated above, I find that there are nothing by which it can be assumed that the applicants-respond-ents got the Will executed by practising fraud or making false representation before the executant Lalin Madan Kumari Devi. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the evidence stated above, I find that there are nothing by which it can be assumed that the applicants-respond-ents got the Will executed by practising fraud or making false representation before the executant Lalin Madan Kumari Devi. Learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that as per Sec.32 of the Registration act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act) every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration office : (a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order or (b) by the representative or assign of such person, or (c)by the-agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned. 17. In this case, it will appear that A. P. W.1 has stated that he presented the Will for registration. Thus, it is a clear violation of Section 32 of the Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance in Kishore Chandra (supra), wherein it is held that: "where, a document is presented for registration by a person other than a party to it or his legal representative or assign or by a person who is not an agent authorised in the manner prescribed in Sec.33 such presentation is wholly inoperative, and registration of such a document is void". Learned Counsel has also relied on a decision of the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya (supra)wherein it has been held that : "provisions of Sec.32 are imperative and unless a document presented for registration presented by one of the persons described in the section, mere presentation does not give to the Registrar the indispensable foundation, of his authority to register it, and the registration, if made, is invalid. " Thus the presentation of the document by ap. W.1 who is not a party to the Will nor the authorised agent of any the parties and so the presentation made by him was in violation of section 32 of the Act and as such the registration cannot be said to be valid. " Thus the presentation of the document by ap. W.1 who is not a party to the Will nor the authorised agent of any the parties and so the presentation made by him was in violation of section 32 of the Act and as such the registration cannot be said to be valid. 18 Learned Counsel for the opposite parties-plaintiffs submitted that he fully agrees with the aforesaid submissions that he fully agrees with the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants in view of the legal position and the interpretation of section 32 of the Act. He also fully agrees with the principle enunciated in the different decisions aforementioned cited by the appellants. However, he submits that neither the decisions nor the provision of Sec.32 of the Act is applicable here as the Will was presented for registration by the executant herself and accordingly the executant has signed in the specific places. She was also present at the time of registration and admitted the execution of the Will. Thus simply the statement of A. P. W.1 that he placed the Will in presence of the Registrar, the Document containing different endorsement of the executant and also the signature of the executant at the time of presentation of the Will and the admission of the document before the Registrar by the executant cannot be disbelieved. It is quite natural that A. P. W.1 who is one of the attesting witnesses accompanied the executant to the registration Office and for that reason, he might have stated that he presented the Will before the Registrar. Accordingly, it is submitted hat simply the statement of A. P. W.1 cannot make the Will invalid under Sec.32 of the Act. 19. I have carefully gone through the submissions of both the parties and also perused the original Will and 1 find that the endorsement for presentation and admission before the Registrar has been properly entered in the will and thus a mere statement of A. P. W 1 cannot establish the fact that the Will was presented by him and not by the executent. The submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties that A. P. W.1 is one of the attesting witnesses and was the pleaders clerk, so it is quite possible that he was the executant on the day when it was presented for registration and due to that fact, he has made the aforesaid statement cannot be said as meritless. 20. In view of the discussion made above, i am of the opinion that nothing has been shown which can show that the executant was not in proper health and normal condition when the Will was executed. It appears that the executant appeared before the Registrar for registration of the Will. Moreover, the document also mention that the Will is executed voluntarily and with full mental and physical health. Thus, there is no evidence either oral or documentary which can make the Will invalid. 21. In the result, 1 do not find any inconsistency or illegality in the impugned judgment for which "my interference is necessary. According, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of the Court below is confirmed but without costs. Appeal dismissed.