Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1237 (RAJ)

Munna Lal v. Maman Singh @ Mam Singh

2013-07-09

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), arises out of the judgment and order dated 27.08.1997 passed by the District Judge, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. Application No.6/1977, whereby the trial court had granted the probate of the will dated 31.07.1974 in favour of the respondent-applicant, executed by the deceased Babu Lal. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent-applicant Maman Singh had filed an application before the trial court on 01.02.1977 for grant of the probate in respect of the will which was allegedly executed by the deceased Babu Lal on 31.07.1974 and attested before the Notary Public on 01.08.1974. The trial court having issued a public notice in the newspaper, the appellant-non applicant had raised objection against granting of probate in favour of the respondent-applicant. Hence the trial court had converted the said application into the suit. After framing the issues and considering the evidence on record, the trial court granted a probate in respect of the will executed by the deceased in favour of the respondent-applicant vide the impugned order dated 27.08.1997. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. V.S. Yadav for the appellant-non applicant that the alleged will could not have been executed by the deceased Babu Lal in favour of the respondent-applicant, who was a stranger. He submitted that the wife and the son of the deceased Babu Lal had already expired and Smt. Durga Devi, the mother of the respondent Maman Singh was staying as a tenant in the premises of the said Babu Lal, and that she taking undue advantage of the bad habits of Babu Lal, had got executed the alleged will in favour of her son Maman Singh. Taking the Court to the oral evidence led by the parties, Mr. Yadav submitted that the signature on the will was not of Babulal and that there being many contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the respondent-applicant, the alleged will could not be said to have been duly proved. Taking the Court to the oral evidence led by the parties, Mr. Yadav submitted that the signature on the will was not of Babulal and that there being many contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the respondent-applicant, the alleged will could not be said to have been duly proved. According to him, the very fact that the respondent-applicant had stated in his evidence that he was present when the will was executed by Shri Babu Lal, was sufficient to doubt the intention of the applicant to influence the said Babu Lal for getting the will executed in his favour. In short, according to Mr. Yadav the trial court had mis-appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 4. However, learned counsel Mr. M.A. Khan for the respondent-applicant supporting the findings recorded by the trial court, submitted that the will executed by the deceased Babu Lal having been duly proved by the respondent, while leading oral evidence and documentary evidence, the order passed by the trial court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent-applicant had filed the application for obtaining the probate of the will allegedly executed by the deceased Babu Lal. The said application of the respondent before the trial court was objected by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was not the son of the deceased but was a stranger. It is true that it was not the case of the respondent that he was the real son of the deceased, however the respondent by examining the witnesses and also by producing the documentary evidence like the voter's list Exhibit-6, Nomination Paper of insurance Exhibit-7, Higher Secondary Certificate Exhibit-9, etc., had proved that the respondent-applicant was being treated as the son of the deceased. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court has rightly held that the respondent could not be said to be a stranger. Even otherwise, it is settled legal position that the will executed in favour of the stranger could be held to be a valid will if it was properly executed and proved. 6. So far as the proof as regards the execution of the will in question is concerned, the respondent-applicant had examined as many as 6 witnesses. Even otherwise, it is settled legal position that the will executed in favour of the stranger could be held to be a valid will if it was properly executed and proved. 6. So far as the proof as regards the execution of the will in question is concerned, the respondent-applicant had examined as many as 6 witnesses. AW-1 was the applicant himself, who had stated that he was present when the will was executed by the deceased and he had identified the signatures of the deceased on the will Exhibit-1. AW-2 Harinarayan Soni and AW-3 Kishan Lal Soni were the witnesses to the will who had also stated interalia that the deceased Babu Lal had called them when the will was being executed, and that they had put their respective signatures on the will as the witnesses. AW-4 Babulal Sharma was the writer of the will, and AW-5 Chaman Lal was present before the Notary Public, when the said will was notarized on the next date i.e. 01.08.1974. AW-6 Rajaram Bhargava was son of the Jagan Prasad Bhargava, Notary Public before whom the said will was notarized and he had identified the signatures of his father Jagan Prasad Bhargava. It appears that though the said witnesses were cross-examined, nothing material had turned out from the same. 7. The appellant-non applicant had examined 4 witnesses to prove that the appellant had performed the after-death ceremonies of the deceased and that Babu Lal used to put his signature as "Babu Lal Nai" and not as "Babu Lal", and therefore the said will was not signed by the deceased Babu Lal. However, the Court does not find much substance in the said evidence adduced by the appellant-non applicant. As rightly held by the trial court, the documents relied upon by the appellant to show that the deceased was putting his signature as "Babu Lal Nai" were of the year 1948, whereas the will was executed in the year 1974, and therefore the deceased might have changed his signature from "Babu Lal Nai" to "Babu Lal". The Court also does not find much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the mother of the respondent had influenced the deceased for getting the said will executed in favour of her son. The Court also does not find much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the mother of the respondent had influenced the deceased for getting the said will executed in favour of her son. As stated herein-above, the respondent-applicant had produced the documents to show that the said Durga Devi was treated as wife and the respondent was treated as his son by the deceased Babu Lal, and they all were staying together. Under the circumstances, in absence of any contradictory evidence on record, it could not be said that findings recorded by the trial court are perverse and illegal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, the Court does not find any substance in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******