ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal preferred against judgment dated 8th July 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-II, Nawada, in Title Suit No. 2/84/3/10 dismissing the Probate Application on contest. 3. This is undisputed that one Girja Devi claiming herself to be adopted daughter of late Firangi Singh filed the application seeking Probate of a Will said to be executed on 05.12.1971 in her favour by the said Firangi Singh as regard to the lands belonging to him. Probate proceeding was contested by Darogi Singh leading to conversion of the proceeding into Title Suit, ultimately, the court below though finding in para-16 of the judgment that “The Will Ext. 2 has been prepared and proved by the witnesses as per requirement of law and L.T.I. on the Will are also found of Firangi Singh on comparison with the L.T.I. of the admitted documents.” But refused to grant Probate on the basis of the circumstances as appearing to him suspicious which could not be dealt with by the plaintiff and in para-20 of the judgment such circumstance appears referred as: “1. The Will is unregistered. 2. Applicant claiming to be adopted daughter of Firangi Singh since 1958 and no any chit of paper has been filed to show that Girja Devi was adopted daughter of Firangi Singh. 3. Prior to the said execution of the Will filing of the informatory petition dated 19.11.71 in the name of Firangi Singh in the court of S.D.M. Nawada, regarding taking adoption of Girja Devi and stating that Girja Devi will be owner of all property of the petitioner (Firangi Singh) and further stated in the application that Gotiyas are against this petitioner. 4. As the L.T.I. on the said Will Ext. 2 are so-placed that create doubt and the suspicious circumstances that it was taken by fraud and was converted in the Will as never intended by Firangi Singh”. 4. During the course of argument it remains undisputed rather admitted that earlier matter was brought before this court in Civil Revision No. 390/1981 and it is hold therein that as regard to issue no. 3 i.e. whether the plaintiff Girja Devi was adopted daughter of Firangi Singh and issue no. 4. During the course of argument it remains undisputed rather admitted that earlier matter was brought before this court in Civil Revision No. 390/1981 and it is hold therein that as regard to issue no. 3 i.e. whether the plaintiff Girja Devi was adopted daughter of Firangi Singh and issue no. 7 i.e. whether the defendant brother of said Darogi Singh is not required to be decided, since all these issues are irrelevant. 5. The law provides a Will even to be oral one only the burden to establish may vary and become tuff, but only because the Will in question in the instant case Ext. 2 was unregistered document cannot be taken as a ground suspicious to refuse the Probate especially when there is specific finding of the court below that Will has been properly executed. Similarly ground no. 2 aforesaid also has no substance since once it is held that such question is not at all required to be examined whether any document is produced to either support or rebut that option is not at all required to be considered. 6. Informatory petition Ext.12 was filed on 19.11.1971 i.e. six days before the Will (Ext.2) in question dated 05.12.1971 and in para-2 of the said informatory petition there is statement regarding looking after the cultivation of other works of the deponent Firangi Singh by one Brijnandan Singh who happens to be husband of Girja Devi in whose favour Ext.2 stands. And in para-3 of the said petition also indicates that the electric connection no. NWR 9121.A.S. in village-Bermi, was also in the name of the deponent which was transferred in the name of said Brijnandan Singh on 09.11.1971 by filing a petition by the deponent before the electricity authorities and in this context in para-4 & 5 there is reference about the adoption and following ownership of the properties belonging to the deponent Firangi Singh after his death to Girja Devi. 7. Much argument is advanced that by filing such informatory petition one evidence was being created to bring Ext.2 into existence, but at the same time, no material available on record in any way suggests that such informatory petition was never filed by said Firangi Singh nor it was ever argued or even about the contents relating to management and transfer of electricity connection etc. Thus, just by filing such informatory petition prior to execution of Ext.2 the Will in question, there appears no error or no suspicious circumstances created. 8. True it is that on 1st page of three pages of the Will in question, at the top of right hand side, there is a L.T.I. and the writings begins below such L.T.I., but on other two pages though L.T.I. is on the right side at the top but parallel to commencement of the writings. And on such placement of thumb impression it is submitted that it was obtained without any real intention of Firangi Singh to executed the Will but such placement alone cannot be a circumstance to discard the execution which has undisputedly been proved by the two attesting witnesses with an explanation of non-production of scribe of the Will and the person who signed on behalf of Firangi Singh, since both were dead and apart from attesting witness one more witness coming as a relative of the deceased Lalo Singh who has also come to support due execution of the Will and the court below on finding no error in their statements as stated above arrived at the conclusion that the Will has duly been executed by Firangi Singh, and that remains unchallenged here also. 9. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, impugned order to the extent of refusal to grant Probate is set aside and Will is ordered to be prohibited. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of on contest but there is no order as to cost.