JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 6. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, wherein, the challenged is made to the judgment and order dated 25.05.2017 passed in Letter of Administration Case No.08 of 2016, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi and further challenge is made with regard to grant of letter of administration vide order dated 15.07.2017 in favour of Sri Dharmender Kumar-respondent no.1. 3. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.1 approached the learned Court under the provision of Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act and sought for grant of letter of administration of the Will executed by Malti Devi, who left for her heavenly abode on 29.09.2004 by filing Letter of Administration Case No.08 of 2016. He further submits that the said letter of administration case was moved through the application, affidavited on 16.02.2016, wherein, respondent no.1 has claimed that one Malti Devi, wife of Late Sita Nath Upadhay had acquired some immovable property in the district of Ranchi, Village Rani Bagicha, Road No.4, Kati Tand, Ratu, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi, which are as under: (i) 0.4 decimals through deed no. 1175, dated 11.08.1987 in the district of Ranchi. (ii) 3 decimals through deed no. 11857 dated 02.11.1992. (iii) 1.27 decimals through deed no. 9044 dated 03.10.2009. (iv) 1.36 decimals through deed no. 4460 dated 14.09.2010. 4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that respondent no.1 has prayed for grant of letter of administration in relation to the unregistered Will entered into by the said Malti Devi, whom he claims to be as his mother. He then submits that the said Malti Devi had three sons, namely, Dharmender Kumar, Premendra Kumar and Jitender Kumar and three daughters, namely, Mrs. Rekha Mishra, Mrs. Punam Devi and Mrs. Nilam Kumari Pandey and her brother-in-law is Kashi Nath Upadhay. Malti Devi was married to Sita Nath Upadhay and, thus, they are mother and father of the appellant along with respondent nos. 1 to 5. Rekha Mishra, Mrs. Punam Devi and Mrs. Nilam Kumari Pandey and her brother-in-law is Kashi Nath Upadhay. Malti Devi was married to Sita Nath Upadhay and, thus, they are mother and father of the appellant along with respondent nos. 1 to 5. He submits that respondent no.1 has claimed in the said application that one registered Will was executed by his so-called father, being Will dated 30.12.1987, wherein, he has declared that the property after his death will devolve upon his wife, i.e. Malti Devi and after her death, the property will be equally divided into his son Premendra Kumar and his nephews, Dharmender Kumar and Jitender Kumar and that registered Will was created as final Will of the said Sita Nath Upadhay, which has been exhibited and marked as Ext.-5 on behalf of respondent no.1. He also submits that respondent no.1 has claimed that Malti Devi had executed unregistered Will dated 31.05.2003 and he has prayed for grant of letter of administration through this unregistered Will. The death certificate of Malti Devi was brought on record, which has been marked as Ext.1. He further submits that after the notice in the said case, the appellant appeared and filed his written statement and controverted the statements made in the plaint, wherein, any relationship between Sita Nath Upadhay and respondent no.1 has been categorically denied and his father has stated that the appellant is the sole son of Late Sita Nath Upadhay and the appellant has taken ground of fake and suspicious document and it was also stated that the signature of Sita Nath Upadhay, who was the husband of the said Malti Devi was not taken in the said Will. He submits that the said lands have been mutated in the name of Late Sita Nath Upadhay and he was not made party in the said unregistered Will and mutation of the property in question was also made in his name. He submits that the ground has also been taken of manufacturing of the Will, which was the subject matter of grant of letter of administration in the said Letter of Administration Case No.08 of 2016. He submits that there is no description of any property and vague Will has been issued. He submits that Title Suit No.305 of 2016 was instituted by the appellant and, thereafter, the said L.A. case was filed before the learned Court. He submits that there is no description of any property and vague Will has been issued. He submits that Title Suit No.305 of 2016 was instituted by the appellant and, thereafter, the said L.A. case was filed before the learned Court. He submits that the said suit was filed for declaration of title with regard to scheduled properties, however, the said suit was dismissed for default. By way of referring Annexure-6 Series, he submits that the appellant has annexed two affidavits dated 19.06.2006 and 26.05.2008 entered into by Sita Nath Upadhay, wherein, he has stated that the appellant is his sole son and no one else is his son. By way of referring Annexure-9, which is the deposition of typist as A.W.2 before the learned Court, he submits that A.W.-2 in his cross-examination, has deposed that he does not remember, who made him to type the said letter and further he has also stated that the said letter does not contain any date and he has avoided to mention any details about the said documents. In this background, he submits that there is strong suspicion about the Will and the property acquired through the sale deeds dated 03.10.2009 and 14.09.2010 were the subject matter in the said L.A. case, however, the learned Court has not taken note of the said two sale deeds. He submits that Malti Devi left for his heavenly abode on 29.09.2004, whereas, the said L.A. case has been filed on 16.02.2016 i.e. after approximately 12 years and in view of that, there is strong suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. He submits that Article 137 of the Limitation Act may not attract directly, however, in the given circumstances, delayed filing of the said L.A. case raised valid suspicion. The limitation aspect is also required to be looked into. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur and others, MANU/SC/7451/2008 . He refers paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment, which read as under: “15. Though the nature of the petition has been rightly described by the High Court, it was not correct in observing that the application for grant of probate or letters of Administration is not covered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. He refers paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment, which read as under: “15. Though the nature of the petition has been rightly described by the High Court, it was not correct in observing that the application for grant of probate or letters of Administration is not covered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Same is not correct in view of what has been stated in The Kerala State Electricity Board’s case (supra). 16. Similarly reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court’s case in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani, MANU/MH/0222/1983. Para 16 reads as follows: "16. Rejecting Mr. Dalapatrai’s contention, I summarise my conclusions thus:- (a) under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made; (b) the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is unwarranted; (c) such an application is for the Court’s permission to perform a legal duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed; (d) the right to apply would accrue when it becomes necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years form the date of he deceased’s death. (e) delay beyond 3 years after the deceased’s death would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the suspicion; (f) such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with the absolute bar of limitation; (g) once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay no longer operates.” Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the case of the appellant is coming within the direction of the above judgment. 5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that right to apply actually arose on the date of death of Malti Devi i.e. 29.09.2004. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the case of the appellant is coming within the direction of the above judgment. 5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that right to apply actually arose on the date of death of Malti Devi i.e. 29.09.2004. He further draws attention of the Court to Section 286 of the Indian Succession Act and submits that the district delegate is provided therein and contention has been explained and after such stage, Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act comes into play. In view of that, if such a situation was there, the said letter of administration case was required to be converted in the form of the suit, however, that has not been done by the learned Court and in view of that, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law and, as such, the same may kindly be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 6 opposed the prayer and submits that the learned trial court has given a reasoned finding in the impugned judgment and has threadbare discussed the case of both the sides and, thereafter, passed the said order and in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that he has examined the said deeds and found that the dates of those two deeds were prior to the year 2004 i.e. the year of death of Malti Devi. However, he further submits that in the plaint, the date of those two deeds have been typed, which suggests that the same were after the death of Malti Devi. He also submits that the learned Court only granted letter of administration of the property of Late Malti Devi and there is no description of any property in the impugned order and only letter of administration has been granted in favour of respondent no.1 and in view of that, respondent no.1 is not the sole beneficiary and, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the judgment passed by the learned Court, from where, it transpires that the said Malti Devi executed unregistered Will dated 31.05.2003, which was the subject matter in Letter of Administration Case No.08 of 2016. Malti Devi left for her heavenly abode on 29.09.2004 and the death certificate has been exhibited as Ext.1. Malti Devi was the wife of Late Sita Nath Upadhay. Sita Nath Upadhay has denied relationship with the respondents and he has stated that the appellant is his only son and no one else is his son, in light of the affidavits dated 19.06.2006 and 26.05.2008, contained in Annexure-6 Series of the memo of appeal. 8. A.W.2 is the typist and he has not disclosed the date and he has also not stated who has asked him for typing of the letter and he has admitted that the said letter has not contained any date and he has also denied any details about the said document. 9. Looking into the said Will, which is contained in Annexure-4, it is crystal clear that there is no description of any property with regard to the Will and vague statement is made of properties acquired by Late Malti Devi. In the written statement, the ground has been taken by the appellant that the name of the property in question was acquired by Late Sita Nath Upadhay, who was the husband of Late Malti Devi and rent receipt has also been issued, which clearly suggests that at the time of mutation process no objection was raised by anybody. The appellant in cross-examination has stated that rent receipt dated 22.08.2008 has been marked as Ext.B, however, that was marked with objection, which further suggests that prima facie Sita Nath Upadhay has occupied the said property and he has not been made party in the said unregistered Will. 10. Further, Malti Devi left for her heavenly abode on 29.09.2004, whereas, the said letter of administration case has been filed in the year 2016 i.e. approximately after 12 years. Even no explanation has been made of filing the said case at such a belated stage. 11. 10. Further, Malti Devi left for her heavenly abode on 29.09.2004, whereas, the said letter of administration case has been filed in the year 2016 i.e. approximately after 12 years. Even no explanation has been made of filing the said case at such a belated stage. 11. There is no inflexible rule as regards the nature of the evidence required in any particular circumstances, but the evidence in favour of a Will, propounded after a long lapse of time, must extend to clear proof of execution. This very case tests the truth of the proposition. If the Will had been set up soon after the testator’s death, it would have been easier to the heirs to rebut the evidence regarding the alleged ill-feeling between the husband and the wife or the appellant and respondents herein. In this background, the question then arises has the respondent/plaintiff removed the suspicion, which naturally attaches to a Will produced in the circumstances. What has been discussed herein above, this Court is having a clear opinion that the respondents have not established the fact of suspicion. The witness A.W.2, who has been examined as typist of the letter in support of the Will, is a person of no particular credit and the explanation is not offered in regard to the various suspicious circumstances and that is far from convincing. 12. Further, the probate proceeding is ultimately a matter of conscience of the Court and irrespective of whether any plea in opposition is taken or not, a propounder of Will is required to satisfy the conscience of the Court with removal of all the suspicious circumstances. The probate proceeding is not merely inter-partes proceeding but leads to judgment in rem and, therefore, even when no one contests, it does not ipso facto lead to grant of probate. The probate is granted only on proof of Will as also on removal of suspicious circumstances, if there be any, to the final satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. 13. The probate is granted only on proof of Will as also on removal of suspicious circumstances, if there be any, to the final satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. 13. The principles governing the adjudicatory process concerning proof of a Will as laid down in paragraph 24 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta and others , (2021) 11 SCC 209 are as follows: (i) Ordinarily, a Will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of Will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon. (ii) Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence. (iii) The unique feature of a Will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last Will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a Will. (iv) However, presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator. (iv) However, presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator. (v) If a person challenging the Will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the execution of the Will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the Will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. (vi) A circumstance is “suspicious” when it is not normal or is ‘not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person’. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must be ‘real, germane and valid’ and not merely the ‘fantasy of the doubting mind.’ (vii) As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as “suspicious” would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependants; an active or leading part in making of the Will by the beneficiary thereunder et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances above-noted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the Will. On the other hand, any of the circumstance qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation. On the other hand, any of the circumstance qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation. (viii) The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the Will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance/s. While applying such test, the Court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the Will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will? (ix) In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the Court and the party which sets up the Will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. 14. The conscience of the Court has to be satisfied by the propounder of Will and further who propounds a Will must establish the competence of the testator and that aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage , (2002) 2 SCC 85 , wherein, at paragraphs 8 and 9, it has been held as under: “ 8. The requirement of proof of a will is the same as any other document excepting that the evidence tendered in proof of a will should additionally satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If after considering the matters before it, that is, the facts and circumstances as emanating from the material available on record of a given case, the court either believes that the will was duly executed by the testator or considers the existence of such fact so probable that any prudent person ought, under the circumstances of that particular case, to act upon the supposition that the will was duly executed by the testator, then the factum of execution of will shall be said to have been proved. The delicate structure of proof framed by a judicially trained mind cannot stand on weak foundation nor survive any inherent defects therein but at the same time ought not to be permitted to be demolished by wayward pelting of stones of suspicion and supposition by wayfarers and waylayers. What was told by Baron Alderson to the Jury in R v. Hodge, 1838 (2) Lewis CC 227 may be apposite to some extent "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected hole; and the more ingenuous the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete." The conscience of the court has to be satisfied by the propounder of will adducing evidence so as to dispel any suspicions or unnatural circumstances attaching to a will provided that there is something unnatural or suspicious about the will. The law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. Well founded suspicion may be a ground for closer scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial verdict positive or negative. 9 . It is well-settled that one who propounds a will must establish the competence of the testator to make the will at the time when it was executed. The onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and execution of the will in the manner contemplated by law. The contestant opposing the will may bring material on record meeting such prima facie case in which event the onus would shift back on the propounder to satisfy the court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the will and in sound disposing capacity executed the same. The factors, such as the will being a natural one or being registered or executed in such circumstances and ambience, as would leave no room for suspicion, assume significance. The factors, such as the will being a natural one or being registered or executed in such circumstances and ambience, as would leave no room for suspicion, assume significance. If there is nothing unnatural about the transaction and the evidence adduced satisfies the requirement of proving a will, the court would not return a finding of ’not proved’ merely on account of certain assumed suspicion or supposition. Who are the persons propounding and supporting a will as against the person disputing the will and the pleadings of the parties would be relevant and of significance.” 15. In light of the above discussions and considering the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that the husband of Late Malti Devi, namely, Sita Nath Upadhay was not made party in the said unregistered Will. In the said Will, there is no description of any property. The property was acquired by Sita Nath Upadhay and his name has also been mutated in his favour and further, there is vagueness in the Will. The person, who has typed the letter, is not a credential witness and he has not stated any material before the learned Court. Further, the said two sale deeds disclosed in the plaint are after the death of Late Malti Devi, which clearly made suspicion about the Will. Not only that, the said letter of administration case was instituted after approximately 12 years, which is further a ground to interfere in light of the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur (supra) . If such a situation was there, the matter was required to be converted into the suit under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act and that is well settled principle, however, that has not been done. Further for declaration of right, title and interest, the suit was instituted by the appellant herein, however, it was dismissed for default and that has not been decided on merit. 16. Further for declaration of right, title and interest, the suit was instituted by the appellant herein, however, it was dismissed for default and that has not been decided on merit. 16. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that the order dated 25.05.2017 is perverse, which cannot sustain in the eyes of law and, as such, the order dated 25.05.2017 passed in Letter of Administration Case No.08 of 2016, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi and grant of letter of administration vide order dated 15.07.2017 in favour of respondent no.1 are, hereby, set-aside. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 18. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.