M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE dispute in all the four suits under decision relates to the estate of one Jagannath Prasad Gupta. All the four suits have been consolidated and Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 has been treated as the leading case in which the evidence has been recorded. For the sake of clarity, the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the remaining Testamentary Suit Nos. 2 of 1992, 3 of 1992 and 5 of 1992 shall be referred to as defendants. The plaintiffs in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 was Shiv Charan Lal Gupta son of Late Lalai Ram and Kamta Prasad Gupta alias Kalloo son of late Bhole Nath. Shiv Charan Lal Gupta died during the pendency of the case and his legal heir Smt. Manorama Devi (daughter) has been substituted in his place. Jagannath Prasad Gupta was the resident of Allahabad and died on 14-11-1988. He was Hindu by religion and had no issue. His wife predeceased him on 30-4-1986. The plaintiff of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 claim themselves to be the agnates of the deceased. The following pedigree has been given in the petition (plaint) of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 revealing the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased. The next of the kin of the deceased are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint who are the cousin brothers and nephews of the deceased. ( 2 ) AS per the case of the plaintiffs of testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta was a businessman and was a member of Joint Hindu Family of Madho Ram. Together with the plaintiffs, besides others as per the pedigree set forth above, he was allotted his share in the properties of the said family partitions on 2-2-1940. He did not adopt any one till his death and died intestate. So, plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the cousin brothers of the deceased have alleged that they are entitled to the whole of the estate of the deceased as being agnates and preferential heirs in the list of agnates according to S. 8, clause (c) read with S. 12 Rule 1 and S. 3 (1) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They have, therefore, prayed for the grant of Letters of Administration through their attorney in respect of the whole estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. ( 3 ) ON notices being issued, a caveat was entered by a common application made by Ram Vishal Gupta and his wife Smt. Vijai Laxmi. Simultaneously, an application was also made by them under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. read with S. 151 C. P. C. seeking their impleadment in the said Testamentary case. By order dated 20-8-1991, this Court held that separate application for impleadment was not necessary. The caveat had been followed by a counter affidavit sworn by Ram Vishal Gupta. It has been treated in the nature of objection. Since Vijai Laxmi did not file any objection or affidavit after instituting the caveat, the caveat filed by her jointly with her husband was discharged under order dated 20-8-1991. So, resistance has been offered in this Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 by Ram Vishal Gupta. Ram Vishal Gupta is himself the petitioner (plaintiff) in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992. Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992 has been filed by his wife Vijai Laxmi and the Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 has been instituted by Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi. Bharat Lal is the own brother of Ram Vishal Gupta. ( 4 ) THE objection preferred by Ram Vishal Gupta in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 is his plaint case in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992. Really speaking, Vijai Laxmi plaintiff of Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992, Ram Vishal Gupta plaintiff of Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992 (who is the defendant in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992) and Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 rely on Wills allegedly executed by the deceased in their favour. The Will relied upon by Vijai Laxmi is dated 9-10-1988. It is an unregistered Will. Registered Will dated 3-12-1987 is relied upon by Ram Vishal Gupta plaintiff of Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992. Bharat Lal and Uma Devi plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 also rely on another registered Will dated 3-12-1987. It would be recalled that according to the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta did not execute any Will at all. Bharat Lal and Uma Devi plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 also rely on another registered Will dated 3-12-1987. It would be recalled that according to the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta did not execute any Will at all. Therefore, according to them, all the three Wills relied by the aforesaid persons are forged and fictitious. Ram Vishal Gupta and Bharat Lal are the real brothers being the sons of Gujrati and grandsons of Imami who was the maternal uncle of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. Their case is that Imami was the real brother of Smt. Gujjo Devi who was married to Mathura Prasad and was the mother of Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased. They claim themselves to be the grandsons of maternal uncle of the deceased in such relation. ( 5 ) THE case put forth by defendants is that Jagannath Prasad Gupta at the time of his death was possessed of a shop on the ground floor of the premises 34/90, Meerganj, Jawahar Square, Allahabad which was allegedly purchased by his wife out of her stridhan but on her death all her rights, title and interest devolved on Jagannath Prasad Gupta. He was carrying on the business in the name of Gupta Electric works, initially as sole proprietor. But subsequently in the year 1983, Ram Vishal Gupta was inducted as a partner. This is the case set up by Ram Vishal Gupta. It is also his case that at the time of his death, he had three bank accounts a current account with Punjab National Bank, Chowk, Allahabad which was in the name of the firm and two Saving Bank Accounts with Punjab National Bank, Zero Road, Allahabad and Corporation Bank, Allahabad, The current account was in the name of the firm and the other accounts were in the personal name of the deceased. As per paragraph 21 of the petition in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992 all these accounts were being operated in the Joint names of Ram Vishal Gupta and Jagannath Prasad Gupta till the time of the death of the latter. Jagannath Prasad Gupta did not have cordial relations with persons on his paternal side and he bequeathed all his properties to the defendants by means of three separate Wills, referred to earlier. Jagannath Prasad Gupta did not have cordial relations with persons on his paternal side and he bequeathed all his properties to the defendants by means of three separate Wills, referred to earlier. ( 6 ) ON 3-12-1987, two Wills were executed, one in favour of Ram Vishal Gupta whereby he allegedly bequeathed the shop and business in its entirety including the firms bank account to Ram Vishal Gupta. By the Will of the same date, the house situate at 3, Khushal Parvat, Allahabad was allegedly bequeathed to Bharat Lal and his wife Smt. Uma Devi. By the third Will dated 9-10-1988 he allegedly bequeathed his remaining properties in favour of Smt. Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta. ( 7 ) SO, in Testamentary Suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992 filed by Vijai Laxmi, Ram Vishal Gupta and Bharat Lal with his wife Uma Devi, they have sought grant of administration in respect of the properties of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta on the basis of the Wills to the extent the testator made bequest in favour of each of them. ( 8 ) BHARAT Lal and Uma Devi claim to be beneficiary of house No. 3 situate in Khushal Parvat, Allahabad on the basis of registered Will dated 3-12-1987 and in Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 have prayed for grant of letters of Administration with the Will annexed in favour of one of them, Bharat Lal. In Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992, Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta has prayed for grant of letters of Administration with the copy of the Will annexed in respect of the estate of the deceased detailed in unregistered Will dated 9-10-1988. ( 9 ) SO, shortly put, the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 claim themselves to be agnates of the deceased and pleading that the deceased died intestate without leaving any Will have claimed Letters of Administration in respect of his entire estate. On the other hand, the plaintiffs of remaining three Testamentary suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992 have relied upon the alleged Wills executed by the deceased and have prayed for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate covered by the Will relied upon by each of them. On the other hand, the plaintiffs of remaining three Testamentary suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992 have relied upon the alleged Wills executed by the deceased and have prayed for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate covered by the Will relied upon by each of them. It may be recalled at the risk of repetition that the Will dated 3-12-1987 in favour of Ram Vishal Gupta and another Will of the same date in favour of Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi are registered whereas the third Will dated 9-10-1988 relied upon by Smt. Vijai Laxmi in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992 is an unregistered one. ( 10 ) ON the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed on 18-8-1992 in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992. "1. Whether the plaintiffs being agnates of Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased are entitled to inherit his estate?2. Whether Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased had become mentally and physically unfit since after the death of his wife Smt. Sita Devi and in his life time the said Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased did not execute any testament/will with reference to his estate?3. Whether Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased was not competent to bequeath the said estate/property possessed by him?4. Whether the alleged testaments dated 3-12-1987, 9-10-1988 and 27-10-1988 relied upon by the defendants and his relations were not executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased and even otherwise they are invalid?5. Whether the defendants have no locus standi and right, title and interest in respect of estate of deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta ?6. Whether the alleged testaments dated 3-12-1987. , 9-10-1988 and 27-10-1988 allegedly executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased were resultant of fraud, undue influence, coercion practised upon the said Jagannath Prasad Gupta deceased?7. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? ( 11 ) IN Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992, following issues were framed on 18-8-1992 :"1. Whether the Will dated 9-10-1988 upon which the petitioner relies, was, in fact, executed by late Jagannath Prasad Gupta and he was competent to make this Will?2. Whether the Will dated 9-101988 was executed by late Jagannath Prasad Gupta with a sound mind and mental capacity to make a testamentary disposition?3. Whether the Will dated 9-10-1988 was obtained from the testator, the late Jagannath Prasad Gupta under undue influence, fraud or coercion?4. Whether the Will dated 9-101988 was executed by late Jagannath Prasad Gupta with a sound mind and mental capacity to make a testamentary disposition?3. Whether the Will dated 9-10-1988 was obtained from the testator, the late Jagannath Prasad Gupta under undue influence, fraud or coercion?4. Whether the petition is barred under the provisions of S. 232 of Indian Succession Act?5. Whether the Testamentary petition as filed is not maintainable?6. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition?7. Whether the deceased testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta was not competent to bequeath the properties in question?8. To what relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled?" ( 12 ) IN Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992, following issues were framed on 18-8-1992 :"1. Whether the Will dated 3-12-1987 upon which the petitioner relies, was, in fact, executed by late Jagannath Prasad Gupta and he was competent to make this Will?2. Whether the Will dated 3-12-1987 was executed by late Jagannath Prasad Gupta with a sound mind and mental capacity to make a testamentary disposition?3. Whether the Will dated 3-12-1987 was obtained from the testator, the late Jagannath Prasad Gupta under undue influence, fraud or coercion?4. Whether the petition is barred under the provisions of S. 232 of Indian Succession Act?5. Whether the Testamentary petition as filed is not maintainable?6. Whether the Petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition?7. Whether the deceased testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta was not competent to bequeath the properties in question?8. To what relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled ?" ( 13 ) IN Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992, following issues were framed on 6-12-1994 :"1. Whether the Testamentary Petition as filed, was not maintainable?2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition?3. Whether the petition is barred by limitation. , doctrine of waiver estoppel and acquiescence and also by the provisions of S. 232 of the Indian Succession Act as pleaded in paragraph II of the written statement (a-12)?4. Whether the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta was competent to bequeath the properties in question?5. Whether the alleged will dated 3-12-1987 was duly and validly executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta?6. Whether the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta was in a sound disposing state of mind on the date when the alleged Will dated 3-12-1987 was executed?7. Whether the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta was competent to bequeath the properties in question?5. Whether the alleged will dated 3-12-1987 was duly and validly executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta?6. Whether the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta was in a sound disposing state of mind on the date when the alleged Will dated 3-12-1987 was executed?7. Whether the alleged Will dated 3-12-1987 was forged and was not executed or got registered by Jagannath Prasad Gupta?8. Whether the alleged Will dated 3-12-1987 was executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta is result of undue influence, fraud and coercion by the petitioners and some others?9. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" ( 14 ) ALL the suits being consolidated, evidence has been recorded in leading Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 which is to be read to decide the four cases. ( 15 ) THE witnesses examined are P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad Gupta alias Kallu, P. W. 2 Kapil Deo Muni, D. W. 1 Ram Vishal Gupta, D. W. 2 Gyan Chand Sharma, D. W. 3 Vijai Laxmi and D. W. 4 Ram Chandra. ( 16 ) I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length. ( 17 ) IT is clear that the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 are on one side whereas the plaintiffs of remaining three Testamentary suits pitched on the other side and jointly oppose the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992. There is no inter se conflict of interest amongst the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992, each of them relying on the individual Will. I now propose to record my findings on the issues having regard to the evidence and documents on record, keeping in view the arguments advanced at the bar and the relevant law. Issue No. 1 of Suit No. 1 of 1992. ( 18 ) ONE of the plaintiffs, namely, Kamta Prasad Gupta alias Kallu, P. W. 1 has been examined from the side of the plaintiffs who has proved the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. The pedigree of the deceased as given in the petition (plaint) is admitted by all the parties. It has not at all been disputed by any party that the plaintiffs of suit No. 1 of 1992 are the agnates of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. The pedigree of the deceased as given in the petition (plaint) is admitted by all the parties. It has not at all been disputed by any party that the plaintiffs of suit No. 1 of 1992 are the agnates of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. There is no dispute in this regard that in the absence of Wills allegedly executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta as set up in suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992, the plaintiffs of suit no. 1 of 1992 would inherit the estate of the deceased. ( 19 ) ISSUE No. 1 of suit No. 1 of 1992 is, accordingly, answered that the plaintiffs are the agnates of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta and they would be entitled to inherit his estate in case it is found that the deceased did not execute the Wills as set up in suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992 by the plaintiffs of the said suits. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of suit No. 1 of 1992, issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of suit No. 2 of 1992. Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of suit No. 3 of 1992 and issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of suit No. 5 of 1992. ( 20 ) ALL these issues are related with each other and should be decided together for the sake of clarity and to avoid repetition. The crux of the matter is as to whether the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta possessed a sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of the alleged three Wills, out of which two are dated 3-12-1987 and the third one is dated 9-10-1988 and whether he executed the same with full mental capacity and by his own free will. ( 21 ) TO begin with, the Supreme Court has laid down in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma, reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 the law relating to the proof of Wills. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is relevant which is excerpted below for instant attention: (at Page 451)" (18) What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills? It is well known that the proof of Wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. It is well known that the proof of Wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68, Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under S. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Ss. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a Court of law. Similarly, Ss. 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by Will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. This section also requires that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the Will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last Will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the Will? This section also requires that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the Will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last Will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the Will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will? Did he put his signature to the Will knowing what it contained ? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of Wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. " ( 22 ) THE position of the case at hand should be examined in the above perspective. The contention of the plaintiffs of suit No. 1 of 1992 is that Jagannath Prasad Gupta had become mentally and physically unfit after the death of his wife Sita Devi and he had lost mental capacity to execute any Will. On behalf of the plaintiffs, one of them Kamta Prasad has been examined as P. W. 1. One Kapil Deo has been examined As P. W. 2. It is significant to note that Kamta Prasad P. W. 1 did not even see any of the Wills while in the witness box. Thus he did not and could not deny the signatures of Jagannath Prasad Gupta on the three Wills. What he stated before the Court is that he had no knowledge about any Wills executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta. To say in other words, he simply pleaded ignorance about the execution of any Will by Jagannath Prasad Gupta. No firm and believable evidence has been adduced from the side of the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 that Jagannath Prasad Gupta was mentally unstable or had become lunatic after the death of his wife. To say in other words, he simply pleaded ignorance about the execution of any Will by Jagannath Prasad Gupta. No firm and believable evidence has been adduced from the side of the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 that Jagannath Prasad Gupta was mentally unstable or had become lunatic after the death of his wife. All that P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad could say in his examination-in-chief was that after the death of his wife Sita Devi, the mental condition of Jagannath Prasad Gupta was such as would be of any other person in similar circumstances. He, However, added that his mental condition had become ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". No doubt, he would have suffered mental agony on losing his wife by murder in his old age, particularly when he had no issue. But that does not lead to the inference that he had lost control over his mental faculty and was incapable of making testamentary disposition of his property. Truth has fallen down from the lips of Kamta Prasad,, P. W. 1 in his cross examination in answer to a question that even after the death of his wife, Jagannath Prasad Gupta used to be there to be engaged in his business at his shop throughout whole the day. Jagannath Prasad Guptas wife had died on 30-4-1986. As stated by P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad, Jagannath Prasad Gupta was aged about 77 or 78 years when his wife died. Of course, the age has reference to biological factor, but does not necessarily have direct correlation with mental condition that the same would become unstable at such age. Gain and loss producing pleasure and sorrow are the two shades of life with which most of the persons reconcile without losing mental balance till they breathe their last. ( 23 ) THE testimony of P. W. 2 Kapil Deo Muni does not inspire judicial confidence whereby it has been attempted to be shown that mental condition of Jagannath Prasad Gupta had become abnormal after the death of his wife. Indeed, he has stated that after the death of his wife, Jagannath Prasad Gupta used to often sit on the chabutra in front of his house quietly; some times he used to laugh and some times used to weep. Indeed, he has stated that after the death of his wife, Jagannath Prasad Gupta used to often sit on the chabutra in front of his house quietly; some times he used to laugh and some times used to weep. According to him, he had become half minded and had no capacity of understanding of what he was saying or doing. It is to be noted that he is a stranger. According to him, he simply had business dealings with the deceased from 1955 to 1964 when he himself was having agency of a company of electrical goods and Jagannath Prasad Gupta allegedly used to make purchases from him (Jagannath Prasad Gupta was also in the business of electrical goods ). He appears to have been picked up by the plaintiffs to infuse life in their case. As per his statement, his business of electrical goods was closed down in 1964 whereafter he started as an architect but he does not seem to possess any diploma in this branch of knowledge. Though he claims to be residing in the same locality for a number of years, but he could not recognise Bharat Lal in the Court, who admittedly was residing. ( 24 ) JAGANNATH Prasad Gupta since after the death of his wife as admitted by P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad (sic ). This Court is of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P. W. 2 Kapil Deo Muni whereby it has been sought to be proved by the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 that the mental condition of Jagannath Prasad Gupta was unstable after the death of his wife and for that reason he was incapable of making testamentary disposition of his property on 3-12-1987 and 9-10-1988 when the three disputed Wills had been executed by him. ( 25 ) ON the other hand, Ram Vishal Gupta has been examined as D. W. 1 who is the propounder and legatee of one of the two registered Wills dated 3-12-1987 executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta. ( 25 ) ON the other hand, Ram Vishal Gupta has been examined as D. W. 1 who is the propounder and legatee of one of the two registered Wills dated 3-12-1987 executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta. It may be observed here that it is the own admission of P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad that after the death of the wife of Jagannath Prasad Gupta, Ranno Devi - (mother of Ram Vishal Gupta and his brother Bharat Lal) as also Uma Devi - wife of Bharat Lal had been called and kept by Jagannath Prasad Gupta with him and they used to look after him. It has also been admitted by P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad that D. W. 1 Ram Vishal was doing business with Jagannath Prasad Gupta and earlier to him Ram Vishals father Gujrati Lal was doing business with Jagannath Prasad Gupta in the same shop. The clear statement of D. W. 1 Ram Vishal is that Jagannath Prasad Gupta separated from his uncles in 1940; Jagannath Prasad Gupta started business of electrical goods and continued to do it till before 4 or 5 days of his death (Jagannath Prasad Gupta died on 14-11-1998 ). He himself was a partner in his business since 1983. He also spoke about the deed of partnership on record. His statement is that Jagannath Prasad Gupta had suddenly been taken ill three days before his death and was admitted in Priti Nursing Home by him. He testified about three Wills executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta, two of which are dated 3-12-1987 and the third one is dated 9-10-1988 which are in dispute. ( 26 ) D. W. 2 Gyan Chand Sharma is the attesting witness of the two Wills dated 3-12-1987 and has deposed that Jagannath Prasad Gupta was in perfect mental and physical condition when he got them drafted. He read over the same and thereafter got them typed and signed. This witness and another attesting witness had signed the same. The two Wills were then taken to the sub-Registrars office for registration. ( 27 ) D. W. 3 Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta D. W. 1 has also testified about the perfect mental condition of Jagannath Prasad Gupta at the time of execution of the third Will dated 9-10-1988 in her favour. It is, of course, not a registered Will. ( 27 ) D. W. 3 Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta D. W. 1 has also testified about the perfect mental condition of Jagannath Prasad Gupta at the time of execution of the third Will dated 9-10-1988 in her favour. It is, of course, not a registered Will. An Attesting witness of this Will too, namely, Ram Chandra has been examined as D. W. 4 who has proved it according to the requirements of law. He has emphatically stated that Jagannath Prasad Gupta had read over the Will and thereafter he and the attesting witness (including this witness) had signed the same. At that time, the mental condition of Jagannath Prasad Gupta was perfectly normal. ( 28 ) SO, all the three Wills have been proved as per the requirements of law. The fact that mental condition of Jagannath Prasad Gupta was sound at the time of the execution of the three Wills has also been satisfactorily proved by the evidence of the witnesses named above. There is no circumstance whatsoever to cast cloud on the genuineness of the three Wills in question. It is also pertinent to state that the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 did not procure the opinion of hand writing expert to dispute and challenge the signatures of Jagannath Prasad Gupta on the three Wills in question. ( 29 ) SO far this aspect of the matter is concerned that the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta excluded his next of kin on the paternal side, the evidence on record indicates that he was most close to Gujrati Lal (father of Ram Vishal and Bharat Lal ). After the death of the wife of Jagannath Prasad Gupta, it were the family members of Gujrati Lal who were looking after him. Moreover, Gujarati Lal and Ram Vishal had long been associated with him in business. Therefore, it was quite natural for him to have bequeathed his estate in favour of Ram Vishal and Bharat Lal and their wives. There is nothing unusual about it that one feels closer to those with whom he has association and who are helpful to him in old age. Admittedly, Jagannath Prasad Gupta had no issue. Therefore, it was quite natural for him to have bequeathed his estate in favour of Ram Vishal and Bharat Lal and their wives. There is nothing unusual about it that one feels closer to those with whom he has association and who are helpful to him in old age. Admittedly, Jagannath Prasad Gupta had no issue. The simple relationship by blood with the plaintiffs did not matter for him as they were of no help to him in his old age when he was in the last phase of his life. It is found recorded also in the Wills in question that Gujrati Lal father of Ram Vishal had been looking after and helping the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta in his business since the very beginning and in the life time of Gujrati Lal himself, Ram Vishal was also taken in business (Gujrati Lal died on 24-4-1985 ). The reason is clearly borne out from the reading of the Wills that Gujrati Lal (father of Ram Vishal and Bharat Lal), Ram Vishal, Bharat Lal and their family members including their wives were caring and looking after the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. Therefore, it was natural that he had greater love and affection for them in comparison to the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 (his agnates) from whom he had separated long back in 1940. ( 30 ) IT is noted from the statement of P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad that he was completely distanced and detached from Jagannath Prasad Gupta. He has stated that after the death of Jagannath Prasad Gupta, he went to his house but did not attend his funeral. He admitted that the dead body of Jagannath Prasad Gupta was brought to his house from the Nursing House in the evening but he went to his house the next day. The distance of his house from the house of Jagannath Prasad Gupta is only 70 or 80 yards. So, the feeling of attachment and thickness of P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad with the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta can very well be gauged. He did not even go to the house of the deceased the very evening his dead body was brought there from the Nursing Home and only did the empty formality of going to the house the next day but avoiding to attend his funeral even. He did not even go to the house of the deceased the very evening his dead body was brought there from the Nursing Home and only did the empty formality of going to the house the next day but avoiding to attend his funeral even. Revelations made by P. W. 1 Kamta Prasad in his cross examination further strengthen the belief that he and his family members were not at all close to the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. He admitted that there are 20 members in his family, but on the death of his wife, Jagannath Prasad Gupta had sent for Gujrati Lals wife Ranno Devi, his son Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi to live with him. No next of kin on his paternal side was kept by Jagannath Prasad Gupta with him. ( 31 ) THE plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 have challenged the validity of the three Wills in question, two of which are dated 3-12-1987 and the third one is dated 9-10-1988. It has been found in the discussion herein above that the three Wills are absolutely valid, not suffering from any flaw or infirmity. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs is bound to be rejected which challenges the three Wills in question. ( 32 ) IN issue No. 4 of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, reference has come of will dated 27-10-1988. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs invited the Courts attention to the admission of D. W. 1 Ram Vishal Gupta at page Nos. 20 and 21 wherein he has stated that his wife Vijai Laxmi had filed suit No. 30 of 1989 Vijai Laxmi v. Sheo Prasad in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad relating to the account of Punjab National Bank. He was questioned that in that suit Ranno Devi (mother of the witness) filed objection alleging that Jagannath Prasad Gupta had executed a Will in her favour on 27-10-1988. The answer of D. W. 1 Ram Vishal Gupta to this question is that he did not know about any such Will or objection. The truth of the matter is that there is no Will dated 27-10-1988 on record. Nor has any of the parties relied on any such will dated 27-10-1988, making an issue thereof. The answer of D. W. 1 Ram Vishal Gupta to this question is that he did not know about any such Will or objection. The truth of the matter is that there is no Will dated 27-10-1988 on record. Nor has any of the parties relied on any such will dated 27-10-1988, making an issue thereof. In this view of the matter, it would be futile exercise in the air to dilate on the existence of any such Will dated 27-10-1988. The question does not arise of any discussion on the basis of any such non-existent Will dated 27-10-1988. ( 33 ) IN view of the above discussion, this Court records finding on the issues under decision as under :the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 have failed to prove that the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta had become mentally and physically unfit since after the death of his wife Smt. Sita Devi; that he did not have the competency to bequeath his estate/property and that he did not execute any Will. It is further held that the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta executed two registered Wills dated 3-12-1987 and the third unregistered Will dated 9-10-1988 in question with his full mental capacity, sound mind and of his own free will. The same are his validly executed Wills. ( 34 ) ISSUE Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992, Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992 and issue Nos. 4 and 5 and 6 of the Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 are decided accordingly. Issue No. 6 of Suit No. 1 of 1992, Issue No. 3 of Suit No. 2 of 1992, Issue No. 3 of Suit No. 3 of 1992 and Issue Nos. 7 and 8 of Suit No. 5 of 1992. ( 35 ) ALL these issues are connected with each other and are decided together for the sake of convenience. In issue No. 6 of Suit No. 1 of 1992, reference has come to be made of a Will dated 27-10-1988. 7 and 8 of Suit No. 5 of 1992. ( 35 ) ALL these issues are connected with each other and are decided together for the sake of convenience. In issue No. 6 of Suit No. 1 of 1992, reference has come to be made of a Will dated 27-10-1988. It has already been held above while dealing with the issues of the three Wills in question that there is no such Will dated 27-10-1988 on record and as such there cannot be any question for consideration as to whether the same was the result of fraud, undue influence or coercion practised upon Jagannath Prasad Gupta. The plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 have also challenged two Wills dated 3-12-1987 and the third one dated 9-10-1988 executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta as being the result of fraud, undue influence and coercion practised upon him and the same have been designated to be forged. This controversy has come to be raised by the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 and it was for them to have proved these allegations. However, the Court finds that no evidence has been led to substantiate these allegations. There is not even an iota of evidence or circumstance to indicate the play of fraud, undue influence or coercion on Jagannath Prasad Gupta in the execution of the two Wills dated 3-12-1987 and the third one dated 9-10-1988. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 did not even press these issues when he advanced arguments before the Court. ( 36 ) IN view of what has been stated above, I decide Issue No. 6 of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, Issue No. 3 of Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992, Issue No. 3 of Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992 and issue Nos. 7 and 8 of Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 in the negative against the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992. Issue No. 5 of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992. ( 37 ) THE plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 raised a plea challenging the locus standi, right, title and interest of the defendants in respect of the estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. Issue No. 5 of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992. ( 37 ) THE plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 raised a plea challenging the locus standi, right, title and interest of the defendants in respect of the estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. It has to be kept in mind that the defendants are the legatees or beneficiaries as per the two Wills dated 3-12-1987 and the third one dated 9-10-1988 executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta in their favour which have been found to have been validly executed by him. To state this another way, the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta made testamentary disposition of his estate detailed in the three wills in favour of these defendants. Smt. Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta is the residuary legatee in the unregistered will dated 9-10-1988 executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta, whereas Ram Vishal Gupta is the legatee and beneficiary in respect of the estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta described in one of the registered wills dated 3-12-1987. Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi are the legatees and beneficiaries described in another registered will dated 3-12-1987 executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. The wills having been validly executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta in their favour in respect of his estate, they have locus standi, right, title and interest in respect of the estate (s) bequeathed to each of them by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. ( 38 ) IN the result, Issue No. 5 of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 is decided accordingly, against the plaintiffs. Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992, Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 19932 and issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992. ( 39 ) THESE issues should also be decided together as they raise the same controversy. The contention has been raised from the side of the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 that the Suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992 are barred by the provisions of Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. As regards Suit No. 5 of the 1992, the plea has been raised about the suit being barred by limitation, doctrine of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence as well as by Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992 are barred by the provisions of Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. As regards Suit No. 5 of the 1992, the plea has been raised about the suit being barred by limitation, doctrine of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence as well as by Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. Issue No. 3 of Suit No. 5 of 1992 has been cast accordingly. ( 40 ) MAINTAINABILITY of the Suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992 and locus standi of the plaintiffs of the said suits to file the same has been challenged on the score of Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. Therefore, to avoid over-lapping, this Court has thought it proper to decide all these issues together. For proper sequence and appreciation, it would be recorded here that Suit No. 2 of 1992 has been filed by Smt. Vijai Laxmi wife of him Ram Vishal Gupta. She is the residuary legatee and beneficiary in will dated 9-10-1988 executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. Suit No. 3 of 1992 has been filed by Ram Vishal Gupta who is legatee and the beneficiary of one of the wills. dated 3-12-1987 executed by Jagannath Prasad Gupta. Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi of Suit No. 5 of 1992 are the legatees and the beneficiaries of another till dated 3-12-1987 executed by the said testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. The argument from the side of the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 is that the legatees in the three wills have applied for Letters of Administration in respect of and to the extent of property bequeathed to them by such separate three wills which prayer is not in consonance with Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act is reproduced below :"232. Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act is reproduced below :"232. Grant of Administration to universal or residuary legatee.- When - (a) The deceased has made a will, but has not appointed an executor, or (b) the deceased has appointed an executor who is legally incapable or refuses to act, or who has died before the testator or before he has proved the will, or (c) the executor dies after having proved the will but before he has administered all the estate of the deceased,a universal or a residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the will, and Letters of Administration with the will annexed or of so much thereof as may be unadministered. " ( 41 ) REFERENCE has been made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 to the case of Sardar Singh v. Teja Singh, reported in AIR 1946 Lahore 277 in which it has been so held as under :"as provided in S. 232, except in a case where the estate of a deceased has been partially administered before an application for grant of letter of administration with the will annexed is made, the application must cover the entire estate of the deceased. It is only in cases covered by Cl. (c) of the section where the executor has died after having proved the will but before having administered all the estate of the deceased that an application for administration of a part of the estate can be made, and even in that case the application must comprise the entire unadministered estate. On principle, apart from the provisions of S. 232, also it is quite clear that a person who is appointed to administer the estate of a deceased must administer the entire estate and a suit for administration, where it omits to include the whole of the estate of the deceased, is liable to be thrown out on that ground alone. " ( 42 ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 that "universal legatee" means a testamentary disposition by which the testator gives to one or more persons the whole of the property which he leaves at his decease and a "residuary legatee" is one to whom the residue of his estate is bequeathed. ( 43 ) INDEED, the Indian Succession Act does not contain any formal definition of the expression "residuary legatee", but its meaning is evident that he is the person designated by the testator as one who will take the surplus or residue of his property; and residuary bequest implies that the legatee is entitled to all property belonging to the testator at the time of his death of which he has not made any other testamentary disposition which is capable of taking effect. So it means that whatever is not effectually disposed of goes to the residuary legatee. ( 44 ) RELIANCE has also been placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 on the case of H. C. Ramaswamy Iyengar v. H. C. Lakshminarashimhan, reported in AIR 1965 Mysore 87 in which it was held as under (at Page 90) :"the statute contemplates grants of probate or letters of administration in respect of the entire estate as a general rule and limited grants are an exception to the general rule, to be made in circumstances indicated by the statute. The obvious reason is that by virtue of Section 211, the entire estate vests in the executor or administrator. In cases where a part of the estate has already been administered in such a way that that part has gone to some of the heirs or legatees both in possession as well as in title, the legal position would be that only the rest of the estate is actually that of the deceased which remains to be administered by an administrator. That would constitute one of the special circumstances in which the Court may make a grant of letters of administration limited to the unadministered portion of the estate. Where no special circumstances are stated in the petition for grant of letters of administration or are said to exist which will entitle the petitioner to obtain a grant limited to some only of the assets included in the estate of the deceased, the prayer in the petition cannot be granted. Where no special circumstances are stated in the petition for grant of letters of administration or are said to exist which will entitle the petitioner to obtain a grant limited to some only of the assets included in the estate of the deceased, the prayer in the petition cannot be granted. " ( 45 ) THE reasoning advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 on the basis of the provision of Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act and the rulings referred to above is that the legatees of the two registered wills dated 3-12-1987 are not universal legatees. Therefore, they are not entitled to the letters of administration. Vijai Laxmi who is residuary legatee under the will dated 9-10-1988 is also not entitled to the letters of administration for the reason that she has applied only for the grant of letters of administration in respect of the residuary estate bequeathed to her by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. The submission is that there cannot be piece meal grant of letters of administration to her. ( 46 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the matter in controversy. The bare truth is that the legatees under the two registered wills dated 3-12-1987 who are the plaintiffs in Suit Nos. 3 and 5 of 1992 are not universal legatees. Only part of his estate has been bequeathed to them by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. In one of such wills, the legatee is Ram Vishal Gupta whereas in the other one of the legatees are Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi. Therefore, the legatees of these two wills dated 3-12-1987 i. e. plaintiffs of Suit Nos. 3 and 5 of 1992 cannot maintain these suits for the grant of letters of administration in respect of the part of the estate of the deceased only which has been bequeathed to them under the two registered wills dated 3-12-1987. ( 47 ) HOWEVER, nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 as to how Suit No. 5 of 1992 is barred by limitation by the doctrine of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. ( 48 ) IN view of what has been discussed above, Suit Nos. 3 and 5 of 1992 are barred by the provision of Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. ( 48 ) IN view of what has been discussed above, Suit Nos. 3 and 5 of 1992 are barred by the provision of Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. These suits as filed are not maintainable and the plaintiffs of these suits have no locus standi to pray for the grant of letters of administration only in respect of part of the estate of the deceased bequeathed to them under two registered wills dated 3-12-1987. ( 49 ) ISSUE Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992 and Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 are decided accordingly, against the plaintiffs of these suits. ( 50 ) NOW I take up the bar of Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act on the maintainability of the suit and the locus standi of the plaintiff of Suit No. 2 of 1992 filed by Vijai Laxmi. As has come to be discussed herein above, she is the residuary legatee. Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act permits the grant of letters of administration to a residuary legatee and, therefore, the bar of Section 232 does not apply to Suit No. 2 of 1992 filed by residuary legatee Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta. It is not of great significance that she has prayed for letters of administration for the residuary estate bequeathed to her by the testator by his will dated 9-10-1988. Regard has to be had to this aspect of the matter that the four suits have been tried together in which Suit No. 1 of 1992 has been treated as leading case in which the evidence has been recorded. All the three wills, two of which are registered wills dated 3-12-1987 and the third one is dated 9-10-1988 in favour of Vijai Laxmi-plaintiff of Suit No. 2 of 1992 have been proved at such consolidated trial of the four suits. The legatees in the three wills are close relatives. Vijai Laxmi (plaintiff of Suit No. 2 of 1992) who is the residuary legatee under the will dated 9-10-1988 is the own wife of Ram Vishal Gupta who is the legatee in one of the wills dated 3-12-1987 executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta in respect of some of his estate. Vijai Laxmi (plaintiff of Suit No. 2 of 1992) who is the residuary legatee under the will dated 9-10-1988 is the own wife of Ram Vishal Gupta who is the legatee in one of the wills dated 3-12-1987 executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta in respect of some of his estate. Bharat Lal and Uma Devi (plaintiff of suit No. 5 of 1992) who are the legatees of certain estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta in another registered will executed by him are the husband and wife and Bharat Lal is the own brother of Ram Vishal Gupta. There is no legal impediment to the grant of letters of administration in favour of Vijai Laxmi (plaintiff of Suit No. 2 of 1992) in respect of the entire estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta covered by the three wills in question. . ( 51 ) IT is, therefore, held that Suit No. 2 of 1992 filed by Vijai Laxmi is not barred by Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. The said suit is perfectly maintainable and she being the residuary legatee has locus standi to file the suit. ( 52 ) ISSUE Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992 are decided accordingly. Issue No. 7 of Suit No. 1 of 1992, issue No. 8 of Suit No. 2 of 1992, Issue No. 8 of Suit No. 3 of 1992 and Issue No. 9 of Suit No. 5 of 1992. ( 53 ) THESE issues relate to the relief to be granted to the plaintiffs of four suits which have been tried together and out of which Suit No. 1 of the 1992 filed by the agnates of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta has been treated as the leading case. In view of the finding of this Court that the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta made testamentary disposition of his entire estate by means of three wills (two of which are dated 3-12-1987 and the third is dated 9-10-1988), the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 are not entitled to any relief and their suit is bound to be dismissed. ( 54 ) TESTAMENTARY Suit Nos. ( 54 ) TESTAMENTARY Suit Nos. 3 and 5 of 1992 are also liable to be dismissed for the reason that neither the plaintiff of Suit No. 3 of 1992 - Ram Vishal Gupta in whose favour the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta executed one will dated 3-12-1987 in respect of some of his property is a universal legatee nor do Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi of Suit No. 5 of 1992 fall in the category of universal legatees in whose favour the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta made testamentary disposition in respect of some of his property by another will dated 3-12-1987. The bar created by Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act comes in their way of getting letters of administration in respect of a part of the estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta bequeathed to them. Therefore, these two suits shall also be dismissed. Of course, the fact remains that the Court has found that the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta validly made testamentary disposition in their favour in respect of the part of his estate by means of two wills dated 3-12-1987, but they cannot get any relief in the suits filed by them because of the bar created by Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act. ( 55 ) NOW comes Suit No. 2 of 1992 filed by Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta who is the residuary legatee under the will dated 9-10-1988 executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. It has been held above that she is the residuary legatee as per the will dated 9-10-1988 which has validly been executed by testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta. It has been proved according to the requirements of law. The said will does not0 suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Running the risk of repetition, it may be stated here for the sake of clarity that the other two wills dated 3-12-1987 executed by the testator Jagannath Prasad Gupta, one in favour of Ram Vishal Gupta (plaintiff of Suit No. 3 of 1992) and the other in favour of Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi (plaintiff of Suit No. 5 of 1992) are also in order and the challenge offered thereto also by the plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992 is found to be misplaced. Actually, the plaintiffs of Suit Nos. Actually, the plaintiffs of Suit Nos. 3 and 5 of 1992 have been found to be not entitled to the grant of letters of administration as they are not universal legatees and as such Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act bars their way of getting letters of administration in respect of the entire estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta. However, letters of administration can very well be granted with the original wills annexed in favour of Vijai Laxmi who is the residuary legatee and plaintiff in Suit No. 2 of 1992. It is, therefore, held that Vijai Laxmi, plaintiff of Suit No. 2 of 1992 is entitled for the grant of letters of administration with the original wills (two of which are dated 3-12-1987 and the third one is dated 9-10-1988) annexed thereto. ( 56 ) TO come to the point, plaintiffs of Suit No. 1 of 1992, Suit No. 3 of 1992 and Suit No. 5 of 1992 are not entitled to any relief and their suits are liable to be dismissed, but the plaintiff of Suit No. 2 of 1992 is entitled to the relief mentioned in the preceding paragraph. ( 57 ) ISSUE No. 7 of Suit No. 1 of 1992, Issue No. 8 of Suit No. 2 of 1992, issue No. 8 of Suit No. 3 of 1992 and Issue No. 9 of Suit No. 5 of 1992 are decided accordingly. ( 58 ) ISSUEWISE findings have been recorded on all the issues framed in favour of suits which have been consolidated and tried together. In net conclusion, I decide the four suits as stated herein below :1. Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, Smt. Manorama Devi and another is hereby dismissed. 2. Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992, Ram Vishal Gupta is hereby dismissed. 3. Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992, Bharat Lal and another is hereby dismissed. 4. In net conclusion, I decide the four suits as stated herein below :1. Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, Smt. Manorama Devi and another is hereby dismissed. 2. Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992, Ram Vishal Gupta is hereby dismissed. 3. Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992, Bharat Lal and another is hereby dismissed. 4. Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992, filed by Smt. Vijai Laxmi-petitioner/plaintiff is hereby deceased and it is ordered that letters of administration with two original wills dated 3-12-1987 (one in favour of Ram Vishal Gupta and the other in favour of Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi) and third will dated 9-10-1988 (in favour of plaintiff of this Suit No. 2 of 1992) annexed be granted in favour of the said Vijai Laxmi wife of Ram Vishal Gupta in respect of the entire estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta on payment of ad valorem Court fee by her (plaintiff Vijai Laxmi) on the valuation of the estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta (as per the details given in the petitions-plaints of Suit Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1992) and after the registrar General gives a certificate under Chapter XXX, Rule 9 of the Rules of the Court in this behalf. ( 59 ) UNDER the circumstances of the case, the parties in all the four suits shall bear their own costs.