JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 8.9.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Manipur East, in 0riginal (Probate) Suit No. 2 of 1999. The appellants were opposite parties- 1 to 8 in the Probate proceeding before the learned District Judge. 2. The case of the respondents, who filed the application u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of the Will dt. 2.3.1992 is that the testator Late S. Manihar Sharma was one of the Shebaits of the Deity namely, "Shri Sree Sree Radha Binodlal Debata." There were 3 other Shebaits apart from the Testator. A piece of homestead land over plot No. 1081(old)/2384(new) covered by CS dag No. 1780 covering an area of.1780 hectares in Village No. 85 Sagolgand, Imphal West stands recorded in the name of the Deity. The Shebaits are described as pattadars. In the capacity of a Shebait the Testator was managing and possessing a portion of the said patta land measuring 25 to south to north starting from the southern extreme portion, 110' east to west starting from eastern boundary of the said patta land. The Testator executed the Will on 2.3.1992 bequeathing his right and interest over the land as Shebait in favour of his daughter, S. Sadhana Devi in presence of other witnesses. The respondent and one Sanajaoba were appointed as Executors. The said Will was registered before the Sub Registrar, HQ Imphal. The Testator died on 30.7.1992 and consequently after his death the respondent filed an application before the learned District Judge u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for grant of probate in respect of the said registered Will. 3. The appellants, in this appeal, were opposite parties- 1 to 8 before the learned District Judge. The opposite parties- 1-3 and the opposite parties- 7 & 8 filed two written statements separately but the stand taken was same. It is the case of the present appellants before the learned District Judge that the Testator was only one of the heirs of late S. Tolen Sharma who was also one of the heirs of the former Shebait, late Modhu Sharma, who was looking after the management of the Deity. The property belonged to the Deity and was not the personal property of the Shebait or their heirs. The property belonged to the Deity and was not the personal property of the Shebait or their heirs. Therefore, property belonging to the Deity is inalienable and cannot be transferred or bequeathed in any manner by any of the Shebaits or their heirs. It was further alleged that in view of the illicit relationship between the Testator and the present respondent, the legatee, Sadhana Devi, was born. It was also stated in the written statement that the Testator could not have disposed of any property by way of a Will and execution of the Will by the Testator was a mala fide one in order to deprive other legal heirs. It was also pleaded that the Testator was not in a fit mental or physical condition to execute the Will. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed 5 issues. While answering the issue No. 1, it was held that Brajagopal Sharma, Tolen Sharma and Ibohal Sharma are the Shebaits of the Deity. After death of Tolen Sharma, the Testator succeeded and his name was recorded in the record of rights. So far as Issue No. 2, which is the most important issue, the learned District Judge, after analysing the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the Testator executed and left the registered Will dt. 2.3.92 and the said Will is neither fabricated nor a manufactured one. He also held that there was no inducement from any quarter to the testator to execute the Will and evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent was trustworthy and reliable. Having held thus, the learned District Judge allowed the application and granted probate in favour of the legatee, Sadhana Devi. 5. Shri Th. Modhu. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, challenging the impugned order of the learned District Judge, submitted that the property bequeathed under the Will belongs to the Deity and the Testator being one of the Shebaits could not have made a Will in respect of the property belonging to the Deity. He, further, contended that the legatee, Sadhana Devi, took active part in execution of the Will because of her interest involved in it and therefore it cannot be said that the Will was executed by the Testator freely and without any influence. 6. He, further, contended that the legatee, Sadhana Devi, took active part in execution of the Will because of her interest involved in it and therefore it cannot be said that the Will was executed by the Testator freely and without any influence. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, Shri S. Sachindra, placed the entire evidence adduced in course of the proceedings and submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents have categorically stated that the Testator expressed his desire to execute the Will in respect of the property belonging to the Deity under his occupation and without being influenced or coerced by any one, he had executed the Will. Therefore, the learned District Judge was justified in granting the probate. 7. In a probate proceeding the jurisdiction of the Probate Court is very limited. It cannot decide the question of title or the existence of property bequeathed under the Will. The probate Court can only examine the genuineness and due execution of the Will and nothing more than that. Reference, in this connection, be made to two decisions of the Supreme Court namely (i) CHIRANJILAL SHRILAL GOENKA(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. VS. JASJIT SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 and (ii) ISHWARDEO NARAIN SINGH VS. SM. KAMTA DEVI & ORS reported in AIR 154 SC 280. With this limited jurisdiction, the learned District Judge examined the evidence of all the witnesses and came to a conclusion that the Testator had not been subjected to any kind of coercion or influence for executing the Will and that the Will was a genuine one. 8. PW 1 is the widow of the Testator. She stated that the Testator was an educated person and was working as an Editor of a local Newspaper and had once contested for a seat in the Manipur Legislative Assembly. She further stated that the Testator was one of the Shebaits of the Deity and was in occupation of a part of the property of the Deity as described in the Will. She further stated that her husband left the Will bequeathing the right of Shebaitship and management of the property in favour of his daughter, Sadhana Devi. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination of this witness to discard her evidence. PW 2 is an attesting witness to the Will. She further stated that her husband left the Will bequeathing the right of Shebaitship and management of the property in favour of his daughter, Sadhana Devi. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination of this witness to discard her evidence. PW 2 is an attesting witness to the Will. He stated that on 2.3.1992 at about 5 p.m., Smt. Sadhana Devi, came to the Chamber of one R.K. Sanajaoba Singh, Advocate and informed that the Testator is waiting for him. One K. Bipinchandra Sharma was also requested to go to her residence. This witness, at about 5:15 PM of 2.3.1992, went with said Shri K. Bipinchandra Sharma to the house of the Testator. The Testator told them that he wanted to execute a Will in favour of his daughter, Sadhana Devi. The contents of the Will were read out. At the time of execution of the Will, he signed as an Attesting witness. Thereafter, the Will was registered before the Sub Registrar on 4.3.1992 in his presence. PW 3, Rajkanta Sharma has fully corroborated the evidence of PW 2, the attesting witness, and he also stated about the execution of the Will by the Testator. PW 4 is an Advocate by profession, who had drafted the Will and has specifically stated that at the time of drafting the Will, the Testator was physically and mentally sound. He further stated that when he went to the house of the Testator for drafting the Will, the Testator was sweeping the Mandop. Though this witness has been cross examined at length, nothing has been brought out to discard his evidence. PW 5 is the respondent and she stated specifically that there was no force or inducement from any quarter to the Testator to execute the Will and that she had accompanied the Testator to the Sub Registrar's office for registration of the Will. Nothing has also been brought out in cross examination of this witness to discard her evidence. PW 6 is the witness who had been appointed as Executor. His evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. 9. The appellants examined 5 witnesses and the Court also examined 2 witnesses, but on reading of the evidence of the said witnesses, I find that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent has not been shaken any way. 10. His evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. 9. The appellants examined 5 witnesses and the Court also examined 2 witnesses, but on reading of the evidence of the said witnesses, I find that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent has not been shaken any way. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Testator was influenced by the legatee as the legatee was not only his daughter but also actively participated in execution of the Will. Referring to the evidence, it was submitted that the legatee not only called the attesting witnesses from their office for execution of the Will but also accompanied the Testator to the Sub Registrar office for registration of the Will. The evidence, in this regard, is admitted. However, the witnesses have said that the legatee was asked by the Testator to go to the house of the attesting witnesses and bring them for the purpose of execution of the Will. There is no evidence on record to show that the legatee on her own had gone to the house of the attesting witnesses to request them to remain present at the time of execution of the Will. She had also accompanied the Testator to the Sub Registrar Office on the request made by the Testator and not on her own. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Testator had been coerced or influenced in any way for execution of the Will. On the other hand, on analysis of the evidence, I find that the Testator is an educated person who once contested in Election to become a Member of the Legislative Assembly and at the time of execution of the Will, he was physically and mentally fit. As stated by PW 4, he had seen the Testator sweeping the Mandop when he had visited his house for the purpose of drafting the Will. In presence of the witnesses, the Testator had expressed his desire to execute the Will in favour of the legatee. All these only prove that the Testator executed the Will as he desired to do so without being influenced or coerced by any one and the Will is a registered deed, genuineness of which is not questioned by any party to the proceedings. 11. All these only prove that the Testator executed the Will as he desired to do so without being influenced or coerced by any one and the Will is a registered deed, genuineness of which is not questioned by any party to the proceedings. 11. Having found that the Will was executed by the Testator free of coercion and influence and that the Testator was in a physically and mentally fit condition to execute the Will, and that the registered Will is a genuine document, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned District Judge allowing the application and directing for grant of probate. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the appeal and appeal is accordingly dismissed.