Bagdi Das @ Radhey Shyam Das v. State of Rajasthan
2013-05-14
ARUN BHANSALI
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against rejection of application seeking probate passed by Additional District Judge, Nimbahera, whereby the application filed by the applicant-appellant has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant filed an application on 18.8.1993 seeking probate of the will dated 8.5.1949 under Section 272 r/w Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act'), said to have been executed by one Ramchandra Das S/o Narsingh Das and it was inter-alia stated that the said Ramchandra Das had died on 8.11.1952 and will was executed in favour of the appellant whereby the properties indicated in the will were bequeathed to him. 3. The application was opposed by the respondents and it was inter-alia submitted that the said will dated 8.5.1949 was a forged and concocted document. It was further submitted that the suit was filed by only daughter of Ramchandra Das against the applicant, wherein he filed his written statement on 7.9.1979, however, no such plea regarding execution of the will in his favour was taken, which clearly indicates that the document never existed. In any case, the proceedings were barred by limitation and the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances in view of the fact that though Smt. Ram Kanwari Bai is the only daughter of Ramchandra Das, she has been allegedly deprived of the entire property of her father in so called will dated 8.5.1949. 4. The trial court after due consideration came to the conclusion that the applicant had failed to prove issue No.1 which related to the execution of the will dated 8.5.1949. Consequently, the application filed by the appellant-applicant was rejected. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment passed by the trial court is against the evidence available on record and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 6.
Consequently, the application filed by the appellant-applicant was rejected. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment passed by the trial court is against the evidence available on record and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent disputed the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and it was submitted that mere fact that so called will was executed on 8.5.1949 and the testator died on 8.11.1952 and the applicant waited from almost 41 years before approaching the court seeking probate and before that in a suit filed by the daughter of testator in a written statement, which was filed way back in the year 1979, no such plea was taken regarding execution of a will clearly goes to show that the document was not reliable and further the said document is even, otherwise surrounded by suspicious circumstances as there is apparently no explanation for excluding the only daughter of the testator. 7. It was further submitted that the application was apparently barred by limitation and, therefore, also the same was not maintainable. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 9. The learned trial court has thoroughly considered the evidence, led by the parties and in its judgment it came to the conclusion that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances specially in view of the fact that the probate was being sought after the passage of 41 years and even the attesting witnesses have not supported the contention raised by the applicant. 10. So far as the plea regarding limitation is concerned, the same depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Apparently, the cause in favour of the applicant seeking probate had arisen when the suit was filed by Smt. Ram Kanwari Bai in the year 1978, however, the applicant decided to wait for another 14 years for moving the application seeking probate, which in fact adds to be already existing suspicious circumstances. 11. In that view of the matter, the judgment passed by the trial court does not require any interference and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******