wife of Ayodhya Singh. He submits that the testator remained in absolute ownership and exclusive possession throughout her life over the properties. The testatrix has not executed any other will in favour of any other person in respect of the properties which were subject matter of the said probate case. The properties which were subject matter of the said probate case is situated in Khata no.07 of Mouza- Tandih, Pargana Chaiy, Thana- Chouparan, Thana no.131. He further submits that the testatrix Matishwari Devi was aunt-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner had taken care of her every requirement with full devotion and due to that on being satisfied with her behaviour, the testatrix executed the said will in favour of the petitioner. According to him, the testatrix has no child and she had only a step daughter, namely, Gita Devi, who is opposite party no.1 in the present C.M.P. as well as in the said probate case and she has supported the case of the petitioner. He then submits that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are strangers and they have got no relationship with the said property and in spite of that, the learned court has been pleased to allow the application filed by them, which is against the mandate of law. He also submits that the right, title and interest cannot be looked into by the learned court in the probate case and that is well settled. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pasupati Nath Das (Dead) v. Chanchal Kumar Das (Dead) by legal representative and others , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 547 . He also submits that the will was executed by the testatrix at the age of 87 years. 4. Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 submits that opposite party no.1 has supported the case of the petitioner by way of filing written statement in the said probate case.
