JUDGMENT : 1. The applicants' application for grant of letters of administration of Will came to be dismissed solely on the ground that the applicants had filed application for letters of administration after over 15 years. Hence, applicants have preferred this appeal. 2. The short facts of the case are as under:- One Samjubhai Raghavbhai Umretia resident of Village Prabhatpur, District Junagadh had executed a Will on 06/09/1986 and he expired on 01/11/1986. He owned and possessed agricultural land in the village Prabhatpur bearing survey no.61, 110/2 and 86. It is alleged that he owned 13 Acre 13 Guntha land and also, one residential house built up in 500 sq. yards area of land. The respondent no.1 herein is alleged to be first wife of the deceased Samjubhai. The appellant no.1 is the son of deceased and appellant no.2 is the second wife of the Samjubhai. While appellant alleges that the respondent no.1 Diwaliben was separated by divorce and there was no issue through first wife, on the other hand, the respondent disputed the assertion of the divorce and alleges that there were two daughters through first wife i.e. respondent no.1. The Will in question is duly registered one. 3. The appellants had filed Civil Misc. Application No.70 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Court, Junagadh. Learned Trial Court had framed eight issues for consideration. Out of which, following issues are relevant and material - (i) Whether the applicants prove the execution of Will by the deceased?; (ii) Whether deceased Samju Ragha v Umratia was in sound physical and mental condition when the Will was executed? As to the other issues viz. (iv) Whether the properties described in the schedule annexed to the application are self-acquired property or not?; (v) Whether the applicant no.2 is a legally wedded wife and applicant no.1 is legitimate child of deceased Samju Raghav or not? And (vii) Whether it is proved or not that the opponent is divorced wife of the deceased Samju Raghav? -are not answered by the learned trial Court, holding that it is not for the probate Court to give answer to these questions. 4. Considering all these issues simultaneously in fairly detailed order, the learned Trial Court has concluded that application deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. -are not answered by the learned trial Court, holding that it is not for the probate Court to give answer to these questions. 4. Considering all these issues simultaneously in fairly detailed order, the learned Trial Court has concluded that application deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The main and relevant findings of the learned trial Court are as under:- (i) That the deceased Samjubhai was in fit state of mind and was capable to make Will- is not in dispute. (ii) In written statement at Exh.15, the opponent does not dispute about the physical and mental condition of the deceased to make Will nor the opponent contended any fraud, undue influence or coercion exercised on the deceased. (iii) Whether the property in question can be bequeathed by executing Will and whether the deceased has any right to bequeath the said property is not for this Court to decided. (iv) That the applicant has examined both attesting witnesses of the Will. Briefly oral evidence led by the party is discussed. The Court concludes that nothing material appears from the cross-examination of the witnesses to dislodge the case of the applicant. (v) Reading the evidence of the applicant and attesting witnesses together, no doubt whatsoever appears about the mental and physical condition of the deceased nor the opponent has raised any dispute in this regard in cross-examination of witnesses. 5. It appears from the record that the deceased Samju Raghav had gone to the office of Advocate to prepare Will. That the Will was prepared as per instructions of Samju Raghav. After preparation of Will, the same was read over to Samju Raghav. Two witnesses were called and they had duly attested the Will. Thereafter, the Will was dully registered. The Court, has then, considered the issue of delay i.e. producing the Will for probate after 15 years. The Court agrees with the submission of learned advocate for the applicant that Limitation Act is not applicable to the probate proceedings. But producing the Will for probate after long lapse of years creates suspicion. In this regard, reference and reliance is placed on the case of 'Susama Bala Devi & Ors. Vs. Anath Nath Tarafdar & Ors.' reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 377. But producing the Will for probate after long lapse of years creates suspicion. In this regard, reference and reliance is placed on the case of 'Susama Bala Devi & Ors. Vs. Anath Nath Tarafdar & Ors.' reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 377. In that case also says the trial Court that the Will produced after lapse of 15 years and the Court has held that unexplained delay creates suspicion. In the present case, the party has occasioned to approach revenue authority in the year 1989 and two revenue entries viz.583 and 1087 appears to be entered into qua the property of the deceased. The applicants have not drawn attention of the revenue authority about the Will being executed by the deceased in their favour. The applicant no.2-wife of the deceased was present and she had knowledge of the Will executed by deceased. However, she had choose to remain silent during this proceedings. She has remained silent and has not stated about the execution of Will nor she has given any explanation in her application for probate or in her examination-in-chief. 6. Heard Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellants. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in dismissing the application solely on the ground of delay. He placed reliance in the case of -(i) 'Smt. Shobha Kshirsagar Vs. smt. Janki Kshirsagar & Anrs.' reported in AIR 1987 MP 145 ; (ii) 'S. Krishnaswami AND E. Devarajan & Ors. Vs. E. Ramiah' reported in AIR 1991 Madras 214; and (iii) 'Ramanand Thakur Vs. Parmanand Thakur' reported in AIR 1982 Patna 87. 7. In the matter of 'S. Krishnaswami' (supra), the question referred to the Court was – “Whether Article-137 of Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to proceedings filed for grant of probate or letters of administration with or without Will annexed?” After considering the various case laws, the Court concluded that the proceedings filed for grant of probate/letters of administration could not come within mischief of Article-137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 8. The learned Trial Court appears to have erred in appreciating issue of delay. It is true that the delay gave rise to the suspicion about genuineness of the Will and longer the delay suspicion would be stronger. In the present case, the Will is executed on 06/09/1986. That the applicants have applied for probate on 08/08/2002. 8. The learned Trial Court appears to have erred in appreciating issue of delay. It is true that the delay gave rise to the suspicion about genuineness of the Will and longer the delay suspicion would be stronger. In the present case, the Will is executed on 06/09/1986. That the applicants have applied for probate on 08/08/2002. Thus, admittedly after about 15 years, the applicants have applied for probate. Other side did not dispute about mental and physical fitness of the deceased nor do they say that there is coercion or undue influence etc. exercised on deceased. Therefore, this ground viz. Delay cannot vitiate the application of the applicants. 9. In the case of 'H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs.B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors.' reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down as to how appreciate the Will. It has held in Para-19 & 20 as under:- “Para-19 However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. Para-20 There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicious should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In the present case, the opponent does not dispute or challenge the Will as being suspicious, either in their written statement [Exh.15] or in the evidence. In the detail written statement, the main plea advanced by the opponent is property referred in the Will is not self-acquired property of the deceased, but it is ancestral property. Therefore, the deceased has no authority to make a Will. It appears that the opponent has filed reply before the learned Trial Court on 16/01/2003. In the detail written statement, the main plea advanced by the opponent is property referred in the Will is not self-acquired property of the deceased, but it is ancestral property. Therefore, the deceased has no authority to make a Will. It appears that the opponent has filed reply before the learned Trial Court on 16/01/2003. In their detail reply, nowhere it is stated that such belatedly presented Will is unreliable on that count. In fact, the opponents are required to challenge the validity of the Will in their reply clearly on the grounds available to them alongwith ground of delay in filing the application for probate/letters of administration of Will. In the present case, what has happened is only -at the time hearing delayed application for probate is urged with emphasis, for consideration of the Court. Mere submission cannot help the party. The parties are required to advance their case in pleadings and then establish the same in evidence. On behalf of opponent, only Diwaliben is examined. It appears from the record that entries of revenue record are produced through her evidence, but nowhere in her evidence, she makes any complaint about failure of applicants to produce Will before the revenue authority. Germs of suspicious ought to be laid in the evidence. Diwaliben ought to have stated in her evidence, if not clearly then atleast passingly, she ought to have made grievance on the basis of which delay in filing of application by the applicants can be considered as suspicious one. As stated above the party appears to be unaware of this available defence at the time of filing of reply and also, at the time of evidence and at the time of hearing only availability of this plea appears to have come to the notice of the parties. 11. The learned Trial Court has relied upon on the case of 'Susama Bala Devi & Ors. Vs. Anath Nath Tarafdar & Ors.' reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 377. It is true that in that case also the Will produced after about 15 years. In that case, alongwith the delay in production of Will by the parties, there were other circumstances to raise suspicion about the Will. Considering the other suspicious circumstances over and above the delay in production of Will by the party, the Court has held that delay in production of will is suspicious one. 12. In that case, alongwith the delay in production of Will by the parties, there were other circumstances to raise suspicion about the Will. Considering the other suspicious circumstances over and above the delay in production of Will by the party, the Court has held that delay in production of will is suspicious one. 12. The learned Trial Court has erred in relying 'Susama Bala Devi' case (Supra). The learned Trial Court having agreed with the applicant that the Limitation Act does not apply to the probate application has erred in appreciating delay aspect. In the present case, assume for the moment that the delay would raise suspicion. Then, against that as referred above, it is clear findings of the learned trial court that the deceased has made Will while he was in fit state of mind. Nowhere in the evidence, the opponent challenges the will as suspicious as vitiated by fraud, coercion, undue influence or such like circumstances. In absence of pleadings in this regard and the evidence, finding that the unexplained delay raises suspicion cannot sustained. 13. The order of the learned Trial Court is therefore set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for disposal of the Civil Misc. Application No.70 of 2002 in accordance with law. 14. At the request of Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellants, it is clarified that only finding on delay, that was adverse to the present appellants - is herein set aside and other findings of the learned Trial Court, are not interfered with by this Court. So those other findings of learned Trial Court has now become final. Upon remand, the Court would not reconsider the case qua those concluded findings of the learned Trial Court. Rule is made absolute to that extent.