JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, whose application for grant of probate of WILL dated 09.03.2004 allegedly executed in his favour by his father Sk. Lutfar Rahman by faith Islam, has been rejected on the ground that (i) the WILL dated 09.03.2004 executed by Sk. Lutfar Rahman is not last and only WILL; (ii) the said Vasiyatnama executed by Sk. Lutfar Rahman was not issued in proper state of mind and health as contrary evidence of P.W.-1 creates doubt about Exhibit-1 i.e. unregistered WILL dated 09.03.2004 at the time of its execution; (iii) the learned court below has not hold the WILL to be genuine as the same has not complied with provisions as contained under Section 117 of the Chapter IX of Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan Law and in want of consent of other heirs, bequest in favour of the plaintiff cannot be said to be valid and (iv) the WILL is not genuine as because WILL is claimed to be of dated 09.03.2004, but subsequently, family arrangement was made on 23.02.2005, which is Exhibit-A, which has been admitted by P.W.-1 himself did not disclose about existence of WILL. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, assisted by Mrs. Neetu Singh, has assailed the impugned order refusing grant of probate on the ground that in absence of any finding of the family arrangement done in the year 2005, which does not contain the properties forming part of the WILL, the court below has wrongly refused to grant probate and the court below without any evidence, on mis-reading of the evidence of P.W.-1 that soon before death, his father was not normal, has wrongly interpreted by the learned court below that at the time of execution of the WILL on 09.03.2004, the father Sk. Lutfar Ahman was not in a proper state of mind and health. 3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and the documents brought on record. It appears that while considering the case for grant of probate, the court has to see regarding genuineness of the WILL. 4. In the present case, the trial court has framed altogether six issues including the issue with regard to genuineness of the WILL, which are as follows:- 1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Whether the will dated 09.03.2004 executed by Sk. 4. In the present case, the trial court has framed altogether six issues including the issue with regard to genuineness of the WILL, which are as follows:- 1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Whether the will dated 09.03.2004 executed by Sk. Lutfur Rahman is the last and only will ? 3. Whether the said Vasiyatnama was executed by Sheikh Lutfur Rahman in proper state of mind and health ? 4. Whether the will is genuine ? 5. Whether the will is in accordance with law ? 6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief ? 5. But the trial court has rightly considered all these issues against the appellant. This Court has perused the same and considered all the documents, which has been brought on record. Exhibit-A is the family arrangement dated 23.02.2005, which has also been admitted by appellant (P.W.-1), but there is no whisper of execution of the WILL dated 09.03.2004. 6. The court below has considered all the issues in detail. Sufficient reasons have been assigned by the learned court below regarding Exhibit-1 to be fabricated one and not as last desire of its testator Luftar Ahmad. 7. The court below has also taken note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs. Smt. Kamta Devi reported in AIR 1954 SC 280 regarding grant of probate, the question as to whether the document put forward as the last WILL, desire and testament of a deceased persons was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. 8. The court below has considered the evidence of P.W.-1 appellant Naimuddin Ahmad, who has admitted during cross-examination regarding family arrangement made by his father dated 23.02.2005 and also confirm signature of his father on every page of Exhibit-A, which itself shows that Exhibit-1 adduced by appellant is not last desire of the deceased father Lutfar Ahmad. 9. So far genuineness of the WILL is concerned, the court below has considered the same in Issue No. 4 holding that the probate of WILL can be granted only of the last WILL and testamentary of the deceased. 9. So far genuineness of the WILL is concerned, the court below has considered the same in Issue No. 4 holding that the probate of WILL can be granted only of the last WILL and testamentary of the deceased. Since, there is family arrangement made by the father Lutfar Ahmad on 23.02.2005 (Exhibit-A) and duly admitted document between the parties, the court below has rightly held the WILL (Exhibit-1) not to be a genuine being not the last WILL and testamentary of the deceased. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, since the main issues i.e. Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 have been rightly decided against the appellant by the learned court below with proper reasoning and the same does not require any interference by this Court as the WILL is not genuine in view of the above discussion, as such, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the same, which does not require any interference by this Court. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.