Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 245/2000 has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 passed by the District Judge. Jaipur city. Jaipur by Surendra Bhatia --defendant, in the suit filed by Smt. Poonam Bhatia by which decree he had allowed the application of the respondent plaintiff of grant of succession certificate; whereas Appeal No. (defect) 219/2000 is also directed against the same Judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 by Smt. Swam Anand D/o Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia who was one of the defendant in the suit filed by Smt. Poonam. 2. The respondent-plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia w/o Late Sudershan Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia D/o Late Sudershan Bhatia RIo 7, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur had filed a suit for succession certificate against Surendra Bhatia, Smt. Swam Anand sons and daughters of Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia wife of Shri K. B. Bhatia. 3. Suit was filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stating therein in the application that the deceased Sudershan Bhatia, husband of Smt. Poonam Bhatia and father of Kumari Smita Bhatia had property at Jaipur and Delhi. The deceased Sudershan Bhatia died on 2 1-4-1989 in Frankfurt, Germany and being sole heirs, they had claimed the succession certificate about the assets and liability of the deceased. The application was resisted by the defendants, now the appellant i.e. brother and sister of the deceased. The claim was being resisted on the basis of Will dated 17-4-1989 (Ex. A-i) purported to have been executed by Sudershan Bhatia, with further submissions that the relations between the deceased and Smt. Poonam Bhatia were strained and, therefore, Sudershan Bhatia did not want to give any property to Smt. Poonam Bhatia. The Will is said to have been executed by the deceased Sudershan Bhatia in the hospital of Frankfurt in Germany. The following issues were framed; (1) Whether the deceased had executed any Will and because of the Will the applicants are not entitled to succession certificate; (2) whether the will was legal and effective; (3) whether the probate is necessary and whether ‘Will’ was to be attested according to Germany law or it is otherwise Illegal. 4. The trial Court had decided issue Nos. 4. The trial Court had decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant and against the defendant-appellants and the remaining Issues against the defendants holding that Will was not validly executed and was written in the suspicious circumstance. 5. The appellant states that the order of the trial Court in not believing the ‘Will’ was erroneous. It is also submitted that the plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia was, perhaps, not legally married to Sudershan Bhatia and reliance is placed for this purpose on Ex. 15 i.e. the passport of the plaintiff where her name has been entered as Smt, Poonam Kapur wife of Priyaveer Kapur of New Delhi and also the ticket for journey from Delhi to Frankfurt on 2-11-1987 when she had accompanied late Sudershan Bhatia. In the statement given in the Court, plaintiff had stated that the marriage had taken place on 25-12-1985; it is contended that in case the marriage had taken place on 25-12-1985, then in such situation, the plaintiff could not have identified herself to be Mrs. Poonam Kapur in the passport. 6. Thenext submission made by the counsel is that the averments in the application under Section 372 had not been proved. It is also submitted that even though Will was produced by the present appellant; the onus should have been put on the plaintiff to prove that she was entitled to succesion certificate. It is further submitted that the Will has been properly proved by the statement by DWs attesting witnesses with Mrs. Brigitti Rose Morsi Gorki and DW-3 Dr. Ure Faber and in such circumstances there was no reason for the trial Court for not believing the Will. It is stated that if the Will is believed, in that situation Late Sudershan Bhatia had expressely debarred the plaintif to inherit any property and he had bestowed the property on the beneficiaries of the Will. 7. Ure Faber and in such circumstances there was no reason for the trial Court for not believing the Will. It is stated that if the Will is believed, in that situation Late Sudershan Bhatia had expressely debarred the plaintif to inherit any property and he had bestowed the property on the beneficiaries of the Will. 7. Thetrial Court had doubted the Will on number of counts; (1) how Surendra --appellant was able to get the possession of the Will; (2) if Sudershan Bhatia was in the hospital at the time of writing of Will, it was dictated to whom and where was the original draft; (3) the Will written on the half page itself could have been written in hand or typing; (4) there is no attesting witnesses of the doctor or the Nurse of the hospital; (5) no record has been placed of physical or mental condition of the deceased; (6) there is no record about the presence of the attesting witnesses in the hospital ever produced; (7) despite the fact that the Will had mentioned maintenance of minor daughter Kumari Smita Bhatia of Sudershan Bhatia. but how no action was taken by the defendants to make arrangements for the education of such daughter; (8) who had got it laminated; (9) in the earlier suit filed between the parties on 17-7-1989, no mention had been made of any Will; (10) Ex. 1/1 a document filled at the time of cremation in Germany, contains the entry that the deceased was unmarried; (11) Kapil Bhatia was not produced ; (12) no details have been given about other properties; (13) the testator himself had written that he is going to die very soon but the attesting witnesses state that he was in healthy body and mind; (14) DW-2 Mrs. Goerke had declined to sign her statement; etc. etc. 8. Above are some of the suspicious circumstances of which the trial Court had made a mention. 9. Counsel for the appellant challenges the finding with the prayer that the Judgment of the trial Court be set aside. 10. Theother appeal CMA No. 219/2000 (Defect) has been filed by Smt. Swam Anand, sister of the deceased, on the ground that the property in question was ancestral and she as a sister was entitled for 1/4th share of the property under Indian Succession Act. 11. 10. Theother appeal CMA No. 219/2000 (Defect) has been filed by Smt. Swam Anand, sister of the deceased, on the ground that the property in question was ancestral and she as a sister was entitled for 1/4th share of the property under Indian Succession Act. 11. in the plaint, it has been averred that the deceased Sudershan Bhatia was doing the business of export of Carpets in Jaipur in the name of the firm Jaipur in the matter of Oriental Tapis Pvt. Ltd., Amer Road. He and the plaintiff No. 1 was the Director and was holding the majority shares. It was further mentioned that the deceased had self -acquired movable and immovable properties in Jaipur and Delhi for which succession certificate was being applied for. Defendant No. 1 appellant had replied that the plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia was the Managing Director of the said company, but had resigned on 1-2-1988. It is stated in the written statement that Sudershan Bhatia was not well and he had gone to Frankfurt for check-up in March 1989. He died in the hospital and despite the fact that the plaintiff had come to know of the death on 22-4-1989, she had not visited Germany. It was admitted that Kumari Samita was the daughter of the deceased and Poonam Bhatia. In the written statement filed, it was nowhere denied that the plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife, rather what was pleaded was that the plaintiff was having strained relations with her husband Sudershan. It was further pleaded in the written statement that a Will was executed on 17-4-1989 in the hospital itself and half of the property was given to defendant No. 1, the present appellant and the remaining half to her minor daughter and the defendant No. 1 was said to have been appointed as trustee of the minor daughter till she attained the age of 21 years. It was specifically admitted in the heading of additionl details that Smt. Poonam Bhatia was a divorced lady married to Sudershan Bhatia on 25-12-1985. It was further pleaded that Smt. Poonam Bhatia had one daughter and one son from the wedlock of her earlier husband who are staying with Smt. Poonam Bhatia i.e. a specific admission had been made to the effect that the plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia was a legally married wife after having been divorced from her earlier husband. It was further pleaded that Smt. Poonam Bhatia had one daughter and one son from the wedlock of her earlier husband who are staying with Smt. Poonam Bhatia i.e. a specific admission had been made to the effect that the plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia was a legally married wife after having been divorced from her earlier husband. (Emphasis by Court) 12. The succession certificate was claimed in regard to the amount lying in the banks. State Bank of India, Jaipur, New Delhi, Bank of India, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, New Delhi. M/s. Jaipur Oriental Tapis Pvt. Ltd. equity shares, share certificates lying in the name of Sudershan Bhatia, details of which had been attached with the suit. .13. Smt. Poonam Bhatia, the plaintiff had appeared as PW- 1. She had stated that she had married to Sudershan Bhatia on 25-12-1985 according to Hindu rites and one daughter Samita Bhatia was born out of the wedlock. She has stated that she and her husband had started a company named Jaipur Oriental Tapis Pvt. Ltd. and she was the Managing Director of the same and her husband was the Director. They were having the majority shares. Her husband was owning movable and immovable properties in Jaipur, Delhi and in Germany. She has stated that the property mentioned for the purpose of probate and succession certificate belonged to her husband and no one including Surendra Bhatia or Swam Anand or Samita Bhatia had any share in the property. Her husband had died on 2 1-4-1989 at Frankfurt. He was suffering from Endocarditis. She had even doubted the signatures on the alleged Will as produced by the defendant. She has stated that the defendant Surendra and her husband were not having any cordial relations as Surendra Bhatia was not happy of her marriage with his brother. She had visited Germany when her husband had gone there for operation in November 1987 and both had come back. Her husband had come back to India on 23-1-1988. He was again admitted at Escorts Hospital. He went to Germany for treatment. She could not accompany because of her Infant daughter as was so desired by her husband. She has stated that she had been talking on telephone to her husband in Germany but she was not told of any Will having written by him. He was again admitted at Escorts Hospital. He went to Germany for treatment. She could not accompany because of her Infant daughter as was so desired by her husband. She has stated that she had been talking on telephone to her husband in Germany but she was not told of any Will having written by him. She specifically denied that the Will had been signed by her husband and signatures do not tally. She states that on getting the information of the death of her husband, the defendant Surendra Bhatia after consulting her immediately proceeded to Germany for bringing the dead-body, but without her permission he cremated him there in Germany. The ceremony of Uthawana was done at Jaipur at her residence on 29-4-1989. Even at that time she was Managing Director of the company. She had produced a voter’s list showing her name and the name ot her husband and one of his servant as resident of Jaipur. She has stated that her husband was divorcee of his earlier marriage vide Ex. 9. She has also stated that the defendant Surendra Bhatia had forged signatures of her husband on certain document and a suit in this regard is also pending in Delhi in Tees Hazari Court. She has stated that she is in possession of the passport in the name of Smt. Poonam Kapur which was issued to her prior to the marriage to Sudershan Bhatia and when her earlier marriage with Shri Kapur was existing. She has not got the name changed in the pass-port. Even though her mother was Muslim in the year 1940, but after 1940 she had adopted Hinduism after her marriage. She has admitted that she had two children from her earlier husband Shri V. P. Kapur, who are now living with her. Even the expenses for education of these two children were being borne by her husband Sudershan Bhatia. He had no objection of staying of the children with them. After the marriage, her husband Sudershan Bhatia had purchased number of plots in her name in Durgapura. Mahar House Malviya Nagar and she was nominee in the insurance of her husband as well. She has even got the insurance money of her husband as nominee. She stated that earlier she was gritting maintenance from her earlier husband. After the marriage, her husband Sudershan Bhatia had purchased number of plots in her name in Durgapura. Mahar House Malviya Nagar and she was nominee in the insurance of her husband as well. She has even got the insurance money of her husband as nominee. She stated that earlier she was gritting maintenance from her earlier husband. In the cross-examination, she says that Sudershan Bhatia, her husband, used to live in India for six months and for the remaining six months he used to live in Germany. She had visited Germany in 1986-87 with her husband and stayed with her husband. Sudershan Bhatia was owning his own house at Frankfurt. She had become the Managing Director of the company on 4-9-1987 in the presence of her husband. She admits that she had lived with Swam Anand immediately after marriage for .about few days, but later on had shifted to their own house. 14. PW-2 K.P. Gupta, has been produced who is a Branch Manager of DAB, LIC, Jaipur and had depose about the insurance of Sudershan Bhatia. He stated that the Insurance money of one policy has been already disbursed to the plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia, but about the second policy the dispute has been raised. 15. PW-4 is Mrs. R. K. Vij, hand-writing expert who stated that she has compared the signature of the testator on the Will with the admitted signatures of the writer of the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 and according to her conclusion, the signatures on the Will differ from the original/admitted signatures. She had given her report as Ex. PW-4/1. 16. Surendra Bhatta has appeared as DW-1. He had exhibited the Will and stated about the illness and death of his brother Sudershan Bhatta in Germany. He says that he was told on 2 1-4-1989 itself by one Rahul Bhatia about the death of his brother and he left for Germany on the next day; he had cremated his brother in Germany and had brought the ashes in India and had gone to Hardwar. He had come back to India on 29-4-1989, ‘Pagri ceremony’ was done. He admits that the marriage with Smt, Poonam Bhatia was solemnized in December 1985. He further admits that Smt. Poonam Bhatta was divorced wife of V. P. Kapur. He had come back to India on 29-4-1989, ‘Pagri ceremony’ was done. He admits that the marriage with Smt, Poonam Bhatia was solemnized in December 1985. He further admits that Smt. Poonam Bhatta was divorced wife of V. P. Kapur. He states that he himself is unmarried, but Sudershan Bhatia used to live with him and that he was doing a Joint business with Sudershan Bhatia. Smt. Poonam Bhatia was told about the death on 22-4-1989. He admits that in the year 1987 Sudershan had gone to Frankfurt and was operated upon for bye-pass surgery. Smt. Poonam Bhatia had also accompanied him, but had come back after about two weeks to look after the children. He has stated that the relations between Smt. Poonam Bhatia and Sudershan Bhatia were strained. He also admits that his brother Sudershan Bhatia was earlier married to one Anita and both were divorced by mutual consent. He also says that he does not know whether Sudershan was writing to Poonam Bhatia or not, but so far he is concerned, there was no much exchange of letters with his brother. Even though he says that he had about 40-50 letters with him, but he cannot produce even one. He also says that he cannot remember the address of Germany where he had been writing to his brother. He even does not know the house where his brother was living at Germany or that was itself acquired or on rent, nor he has even tried to know about it. He has not even tried to know about some other business or property of his brother in Germany. He says that before proceeding to Germany on knowing of the death of his brother, he did not inform any person before leaving for Germany, nor he telephoned to any person including Smt. Poonam Bhatia. He says before coming to India, he had received the Will in Germany through Brigetti Goerke on 22-4-1989. He was introduced to such Goerke for the first time in the hospital. He even does not remember as to where and when he had opened the envelop containing the Will. He even does not remember that the envelop containing the will which was given to him was open or sealed and who were present at the time when such will was given to him. 17. He even does not remember as to where and when he had opened the envelop containing the Will. He even does not remember that the envelop containing the will which was given to him was open or sealed and who were present at the time when such will was given to him. 17. Headmits that in his passport his permanent addess has been shown as A-43, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. He denies the suggestion that he had forged the signatures of his brother and has withdrawn certain valuables on the basis of the said Will. Of course, he admits that some criminal cases are pending against him filed by the plaintif He even does not remember the date, month or the year of the death of his mother or the father. He admits that in the month of March 1989 his brother Sudershan and Smt. Poonam Bhatia were living together in same house. He admits that he was arrested for the offence under Section 420 IPC on 1-9-1990 and was released on bail on 4-9-1990. He admits that certain property had been purchased in the joint name of his brother and the plaintiff He also admits that Sudershan had given the guarantee of Rs. 30 lacs for working capital of Smt. Poonam, He also admits that in 1987 one plot in Mahar House was purchased in the joint name with Poonam Bhatia. He admits that he was not the Director of the company in the lifetime of his brother and certain shares were got transferred by him on the basis of his Will. 18. DW-2/1 is Pradeep Bhatia who is a nephew of Sudershan Bhatia. He says that Sudershan Bhatia was married to Poonam Bhatta. He says that there were strained relations between Smt. Poonam Bhatia and Sudershan Bhatia, but he does not know any reason of such conflict. He does not know anything about his self-acquired property or ancestral property. He states that Sudershan Bhatia was attending to his work in Jaipur from 1986 right up to February 1989. He identified the signatures of Sudershan Bhatia on the Will on the ground that he had seen him signing. He was only a Supervisor/employee in the company of Sudershan Bhatia. He admits that he was a surety in a bail bond in favour of Surendra Bhatia, the defendant. He identified the signatures of Sudershan Bhatia on the Will on the ground that he had seen him signing. He was only a Supervisor/employee in the company of Sudershan Bhatia. He admits that he was a surety in a bail bond in favour of Surendra Bhatia, the defendant. He admits that at the time of surgery of Sudershan Bhatta in Germany, his wife had accompanied him. He admits the signatures on Exs. 26,27 and 28. Smt, Poonam Bhatia was the Managing Director of the Company run by Sudershan Bhatia. .19. DW-2/2 is Alok Anand who is maternal grand father and states that he had property in Delhi and Punjab and after his death in the year 1978 the property was sold. He says that certain property was purchased by Sudershan in the year 1987 and also some property was purchased in Jaipur and the remaining property of Suderahan Bhatta was in Germany. The ‘Uthawana’ was done at the house of Sudershan at Jaipur. He says that he had no knowledge that Sudershan had filed any suit against his company Vandana International Firm .in which he has a partner for liquidation and for recovery of amount in Delhi High Court. He also shows ignorance whether he was a party to such litigation in Delhi or not. However, he admits that he was living in the house of Sudershan in Delhi and that the house was sold by Sudershan Bhatia; he was evicted, his lugguage was removed from the house. He is son of Smt. Swam Anand, He says that he was told about the Will, but he had not cared to either read the Will or see the Will or even does not know as to in which language the will had been written. 20. DW-2/3 is Sumendra Anand. He is also nephew of Sudershan. He admits the marriage with Poonam Bhatia. He says that Sudershan had acquired certain property, one farm house in Delhi, Mahar House in Jaipur in Malviya Nagar in the name of Poonam Bhatia, his wife. In addition he had certain other properties also. He says that after the ‘Pagri Rasm’ Sumendra had told the people sitting in the Rasm about the Will and also had shown the Will. The Will was on a simple paper and was not laminated. He had identified the signatures of the testator. In addition he had certain other properties also. He says that after the ‘Pagri Rasm’ Sumendra had told the people sitting in the Rasm about the Will and also had shown the Will. The Will was on a simple paper and was not laminated. He had identified the signatures of the testator. He admits that there were certain litigations between the parties through him against Sudershan. He also has no knowledge if any suit was filed by Sudershan against Vandana International in which he was Manager of such firm. He has no knowledge even that suit was decreed. He says that Surendra, the plaintiff , was living in Canada for 20-25 years, but he has no knowledge when he had come to India. He identifies Sudershan and Poonam Bhatia in photographs Ex. 32. 21. DW-4 Ramesh Kumar Thakur is Hand-writing expert. He has compared the signatures of the testator on the Will with the passport and says that the Will had been signed by the person who had signed on the pass-port i.e. Sudershan. Certain variation and discrepancies had been pointed out to him on comparison of the two signatures, but states that these are the natural variations. 9.22. In addition toabove, statement of Mrs. Brigitte Rosmorce Goerke, aged 59 years was recorded in Germany on Commission, She had declined to swear in the name of God. She says that she had seen Sudershan Bhatia on the day of death i.e. 2 1-4-1989. She says Mr. Bhatia had presented to her a document on 17-4-1989 and to a question whether she remembers as to what was the document, she says that she can answer only after seeing the text of the document and it appeared that AW-1 was the same document. She says that Dr. Fehr was also present when she had signed the document. She says that Mr. Bhatia was normal in health on that day. The document was presented to her as it is and Dr. Fehr also signed before her. She says that the document was not handed over to her for safe custody nor she had taken this document. She says that she did not know Bhatia before signing this document nor did she know Surendra. In the cross-examination, she had stated that Sudershan had gone into Coma in the afternoon on 20-4-1989. Fehr also signed before her. She says that the document was not handed over to her for safe custody nor she had taken this document. She says that she did not know Bhatia before signing this document nor did she know Surendra. In the cross-examination, she had stated that Sudershan had gone into Coma in the afternoon on 20-4-1989. She says that she was keeping the diary about the illness and death, but had not mentioned anything about coma, but no diary was produced. She says that Mr. Bhatia had become seriously ill on 20-4-1989, he was in the intensive care. She must have met Mr. Bhatia 12 times before his death. When on 17-4-1989 she had gone to Bhatia, no one else was present, not even the doctor or nurse. She says that the Will was already in his hand. She does not know to whom Mr. Bhatia had dictated the Will and who had typed the Will. She does not know as to what Dr. Fehr was doing for his living i.e. other witness, but she says that he was not a medical practitioner and that she had seen Dr. Fehr for the first time. She says that she was known to Sudershan since 1976 when they had met at a flight, but denies any other relations. She also had met the first wife Anita many times. She says that she had met plaintiff Surendra before 5-6-times. 10.23. Dr. Ury Fehr was also examined on Commission, who says that the document Ex. A-i was signed in his presence in the hospital. He says that Sudershan was in good health at the time though he was ill. He says that he is having business relations with Rupil Bhatia and he had been visiting Sudershan Apartments several times with Rupil, which apartment was owned by Sudershan. He says that Sudershan was owning one or two ears. He does not know as to who had typed the Will or to whom it was dictated. He had gone only to sign the document. He says that Sudershan had underwent a surgery Immediately after 17-4-1989. He says that on the next day of death of Sudershan, he had met Surendra, Rupil and his wife and he had picked them from airport. 124. Document A-i /1 is the Will bearing the alleged signatures of Sudershan K. Bhatia, testator, Dr. Ury Fehr and Brigitte Goerke. He says that Sudershan had underwent a surgery Immediately after 17-4-1989. He says that on the next day of death of Sudershan, he had met Surendra, Rupil and his wife and he had picked them from airport. 124. Document A-i /1 is the Will bearing the alleged signatures of Sudershan K. Bhatia, testator, Dr. Ury Fehr and Brigitte Goerke. Ex. i/i is the death certificate about Sudershan. It is stated therein that he was not married. Ex. 2/1 is the certificate by the Mayor stating that Sudershan was a Canadian citizen and had died on 21-4-1989 and family members were residing at D-129, Basant Marg, Bani Park Jaipur. 125. Ex.A is the reply filed on behalf of Surendra Bhatia, defendant appellant to the interim injunction application filed in another suit against Smt. Poonam Bhatia & Ors., copy of which application is exhibited as Ex. 4, but in the reply filed by said Surendra Bhatia there was no mention of any Will even though reply was dated 7-7-1989. In Ex. in a criminal case No. 313/ 1990, the appellant Surendra Bhatia was charged under Sections 380, 467, 420 and 468 IPC for discharging certain bonds. .26. Theappellant had not mentioned about any Will in the defence taken against the charge. Ex. 9 is a copy of the Judgment of grant of divorce between Sudershan Bhatia deceased and Anita, his former wife. Ex. 16 is the .copy of the order in the case filed by Smt. Poonam Kapur (now the respondent) against her ex-husband Priyaveer Kapur. Ex. 19 is the allotment letter dated 4-9-1986 of plot No. A-128 in the name of Sudershan Bhatia by New Pink City Grab Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. In Mahaveer Nagar. Ex. 26 is the affidavit of deceased Sudershan Bhatia about leaving of certain shares in his favour by her mother. Ex. 5/29 is a Will of Lajwanti, mother of deceased Sudershan Bhatia stating therein that 20% share in the form of M/s. Vandana International Exports shall be transferred absolutely to Surendra Bhatia. It is further stated in the Will that Sudershan Bhatia had contributed all the capital required for the purchase of his 20% share in the firm of Vandana International Exports. Exs. 34, 35, 37, 38 and 39 are the merit certificates of school of Samita Bhatia, the infant daughter of Smt. Poonam Bhatia and Sudershan Bhatia. Ex. It is further stated in the Will that Sudershan Bhatia had contributed all the capital required for the purchase of his 20% share in the firm of Vandana International Exports. Exs. 34, 35, 37, 38 and 39 are the merit certificates of school of Samita Bhatia, the infant daughter of Smt. Poonam Bhatia and Sudershan Bhatia. Ex. 44 is the payment of the amount to Smt. Poonam Bhatia as nominee of late Sudershan Bhatia, it is dated 5-10-1989. 127. AW 2/1 is the certified copy of the form No. 32 under the Companies Act wherein there is endorsement against the name of Smt. Poonam Bhatia that she had resigned as Managing Director of the firm. Ex. AW 4/1 is the report of the expert of the signatures on the Will showing that the signatures do not tally when compared with the original. 128. Ex. D-4/1 is the report of the handwriting expert produced by the appellant defendant which shows that the signatures do tally. 129. The following points as argued arise for determination (1) whether Smt. Poonam Bhatia was married to the deceased and were living as husband and wife in India and Overseas. The appellant contests the very marriage on the ground that as per Ex. 1, Ex. 1/1, the death certificates got issued from Germany, Sudershan Bhatia is said to be unmarried at the time of death; (2) in the pass-port of Smt. Poonam Bhatia she has been shown as Smt. Poonam Kapur wife of Shri Priyaveer Kapur and she had been travelling on the said pass-port and had been making declaration that she is wife of Priyaveer Kapur for obtaining the documents for travelling; (3) Ex. 16 is the order of the Court in the case of Smt. Poonam Kapur v. Priya Veer Kapur, an application filed by Smt. Poonam Bhatia against her ex-husband for maintenance on the basis of wife of Priya Veer Kapur; (4) the air tickets bear the name of Smt. Poonam Kapur. 130. It is argued that the abovesaid circumstances show that Smt. Poonam Bhatia, respondent was not legally married. No reason has been mentioned as to why Smt. Poonam Bhatia had not got her name changed from Smt. Poonam Kapur. 130. It is argued that the abovesaid circumstances show that Smt. Poonam Bhatia, respondent was not legally married. No reason has been mentioned as to why Smt. Poonam Bhatia had not got her name changed from Smt. Poonam Kapur. It is further submitted that the statement of Poonam Bhatia should not be believed to the effect that her husband (Former) had got a divorce decree against her in London Court as he was living in London. It is submitted that in Ex. 16 though it has been mentioned that her previous husband had gone to London, but that cannot be taken as a proof that he was domicile in London as he was only gone on pleasure trip. The counsel for the appellant wants to submit that for the reason that there is no cogent evidence to show that Smt. Poonam Bhatia was ever married legally to Sudershan Bhatia; therefore, she cannot be treated as a legally wedded wife even though it is admitted that a child was born out of the wedlock of Smt. Poonam Bhatia and Sudershan Bhatia. The appellant wants to substantiate this argument also on the ground that the pass-port of Sudershan who was a Canadian citizen, it was not known that he had visited India during the period when marriage is said to have taken place and, therefore, on 25-12-1985 it cannot be said that any marriage could have taken place. It is further stated that despite the admission made in the pleadings that Smt. Poonam Bhatia had married to deceased Sudershan Bhatia on 25-12-1985, the appellant is entitled to retract from such admission and even if admission has been made in regard to marriage of his brother and Poonam; and that can be disproved despite the admission if the circumstances so prevail. He wants to submit that for the reason that mother of Smt. Poonam Bhatia was a ‘Muslim’ lady in the year 1940 and, therefore, the marriage of Smt. Poonam with Hindu was itself a void marriage. 17.31. He wants to submit that for the reason that mother of Smt. Poonam Bhatia was a ‘Muslim’ lady in the year 1940 and, therefore, the marriage of Smt. Poonam with Hindu was itself a void marriage. 17.31. Alternatively it is submitted that in any case even if Smt. Poonam Bhatia is held to be legally married, the alleged Will executed by Sudershan Bhatia which is duly attested by two witnesses is sufficient to dislodge Smt. Poonam Bhatia from the property and for the reason that the execution of the Will has been properly proved by both the witnesses, the trial Court ought to have believed the Will. 18.32. It is further submitted that the Will can also be believed for the reason that the relations between the husband and wife were strained from the fact that when Sudershan Bhatia had died on 2 1-4-1989, she had not immediately gone to Germany and it was the appellant who had gone to Germany to bring the dead body. It is further submitted that in the parallel proceedings filed earlier to this suit non-mention of the Will by the appellant was of no consequence at all because that suit was for management