Ananda Sen, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is cryptic and lacks reason. He submits that even the issues which have been framed have not been answered by the trial court. He states that in a most mechanical manner Title Suit No. 3 of 2004 arising out of Probate Case No. 5 of 2001 was dismissed. He submits that the judgment is perverse which needs to be set aside. The trial court in paragraph no. 22 of the judgment has held that the Will was not validly executed as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and the application was not signed and verified by the attesting witness under Section 281 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, thus the application was dismissed, which finding is challenged by the appellant.

3. After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, I find that in a most mechanical manner and without application of mind the District Judge-II, Giridih has disposed the Title Suit No. 3 of 2004 arising out of Probate Case No. 5 of 2001. A Will was executed by Shanti Devi wife of late Sundar Singh, who happens to be the mother of the appellant-petitioner and the respondents. The will was executed in favour of the appellant, thus the appellant filed an application for grant of probate. The contesting respondent who happens to be the brother of the appellant opposed the said probate case which was numbered as Probate Case No. 5 of 2001, so the same was converted to Title Suit No. 3 of 2004. The trial court in paragraph nos. 1 & 2 of the judgment referred to the fact of execution of the will and conversion of the Probate Case to the Title Suit.

In paragraph no. 3 of the judgment the Trial court noted down the plaintiff's case. In Paragraph No. 4 the trial court noted the case of the opposite party no. 1 who is the contesting respondent. In paragraph no. 5 of the judgment the trial court framed two issues which reads as under:-

"(A) Whether the WILL dated 14.12.1999 in question is valid, genuine and last testament of the late Shanti Devi in favour of her daughter, the applicant

(B) Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of the WILL"

4. In Paragraph No. 6 of the judgment the trial court only mentioned the name of P.W Nos. 1, 2 & 3. In Paragraph No. 7 of the judgment the trial court mentioned the exhibited documents which has been filed by the plaintiffs. In paragraph no. 8 the trial court mentioned about all the documents filed by the plaintiff which were not exhibited. In Paragraph No. 9 of the judgment the trial court only noted down the name of the defendant witnesses. Be it noted that none of the documents or the gist of the evidence were discussed by the trial court. In Paragraph No. 12 the trial court noted down the argument which was advanced by the plaintiff, similarly in paragraph no. 13 the argument on behalf of the opposite party has been extracted. In paragraph nos. 14, 15, 16 & 17 the trial court noted and quoted the provision of law i.e Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 281 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 & Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Paragraph Nos. 18, 19 & 20 the trial court only noted down three citations relied upon by the defendants. Thereafter an heading "conclusion" was typed in the judgment and under the said heading in paragraph no. 21 the issues which the trial court had framed earlier was quoted again and thereafter in paragraph no. 22 the following was held and the case was dismissed. Paragraph no. 22 reads as under:-

"22. As stated earlier since the Will has not been validly executed by deceased Shanti Devi as required under the law Section 68 of Evidence Act and the so called Probate petition has also been not signed and verified by the attesting witness, which has also been required u/s. 281 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. These are the mandating provision for grant of Probate."

5. This is the manner in which the case was dealt with by the trial court. There is no reasoning given as to why the court arrived to such conclusion nor the issues which the court had framed was answered.

6. Further I find that the court has relied upon Section 68 of the Evidence Act and held that the Will was not validly executed as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Section 68 of the Evidence Act deals with proofs of execution of the document required by law to be attested. The Will is exhibited as Exhibit No. 1. In the said Will there is a signature of Ranjit Kumar Verma who is also a witness before the trial court (shown as P.W. 5 but there are only three witness). Whether the signature is genuine and whether there is proper attestation or not, is a subject matter before the trial court which the court should have decided but he failed to do so. Further I find that the court has held that the petition was not verified in terms of Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. Whether the provision of Section 281 of Indian Succession Act is mandatory or not has also not been gone into by the court, as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High court of Madhya Pradesh in case of M.A No. 504 of 2009 if an attesting witness does not sign the application, the same cannot be said to be fatal for a probate case.

7. Be as it may, I find that neither the issues were properly framed and answered nor the court had given findings on the issues which makes the entire judgment perverse and unlawful. This judgment thus needs to be set aside, I thus set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.7.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 2004 by District Judge-II, Giridih and remand the same to the District Judge-Giridih for proper decision afresh as per law. Parties are directed to cooperate. Lower Court Record be sent to the court concerned. It is expected that the trial court will pass reasoned judgment considering the evidence on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of coy of this order.

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.