Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 251 (MP)

Ajab Bai v. Karan Singh

1999-03-22

V.K.AGARWAL

body1999
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on admission. The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction, challenging the will dated 22.5.1979 executed by Laxman Singh, the husband of plaintiff appellant No. 1 and father of plaintiff/appellant No.2. The learned trial Court decreed their suit. However, the learned lower appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Will (Ex. D/l) has been duly proved to have been executed by Laxman Singh and dismissed the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants in this second appeal has urged that the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court that Laxman Singh duly and legally executed Will (Ex. D/l) is not justified in the face of evidence on record and, therefore, the defendant/respondent No.1 does not acquire any title to the suit-land by virtue of said Will (Ex. D/l). It appears from the statement of Jagannath (PW 3), who is a witness to the Will (Ex. D/1) that deceased Laxman Singh had duly executed the Will and had put his thumb-impression thereon. His statement is also corroborated by the statement of Ramnarayan (PW 4), who states that in the presence of Jagannath and Maniram, he had scribed the WiIJ (Ex. D/1) on which Laxman Singh had put his thumb-impression. After scrutiny of evidence, the above statements have been found to be reliable by the learned lower appellate Court and it has been held that the Will (Ex.D/1) was duly proved. The defendant/respondent No.1 is the nephew (brother's son) of deceased Laxman Singh. Deceased Laxman Singh had already given share in his agricultural land to his wife and daughter, i.e., the appellants herein. Therefore, the learned lower appellate Court took the view that the Will was duly executed and the respondent/defendant No. 1 acquired title on the suit-land by virtue of the said Will. The finding of fact as above does not suffer from any infirmity. Interference therein is not called for. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal does not merit admission and is dismissed.