Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 547 (PAT)

Sharda Devi v. Bindhachal Missir

2014-05-02

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, J.:–This First Appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1975 passed in Title Suit No. 12 of 1973/ 4 of 1975 by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Arrah. 2. The plaintiff-appellant herein brought the aforesaid suit for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to a will dated 28.4.1971 ( Ext. 2) executed by one Mostt. Jadubansi Kuer. According to the plaintiff-appellant herein, the aforesaid Mostt. Jadubansi Kuer was her Phua(father’s sister) and she died on 29.5.1971, but before her death she executed the aforesaid will with respect to her entire movable and immovable properties, detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. It was the case of the plaintiff-appellant herein that Mostt. Jadubansi Kuer executed the aforesaid will in her sound state of mind and health. The plaintiff, being the legatee, was entitled to obtain Letters of Administration with respect to the suit properties. 3. The sole respondent Bindhachal Missir objected the claim of the plaintiff-appellant herein and disputed the genuineness of the aforesaid will dated 28.4.1971(Ext.2). According to him, the aforesaid will (Ext.2) was a forged and fabricated document. 4. In support of her case, the plaintiff-appellant herein examined 17 witnesses. The defendant also examined 17 witnesses. Both the parties produced the documentary evidence as well, in support of their respective claims with respect to the suit properties. 5. On conclusion of trial, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 30th Septeber,1975 the learned trial court has come to a finding that the will in question (Ext. 2) is not a genuine and valid document and it was not executed by Mostt. Jadubansi Kuer. After recording all those findings of fact, the learned trial court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to grant of Letters of Administration with respect to the suit properties and finally the suit was dismissed on contest with costs. 6. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, has preferred the present First Appeal, which was admitted as far back as on 5.8.1977. 7. Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the appellant in support of the present appeal. None appears on behalf of the respondent either, though names of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant as also the respondent are printed in the daily cause list. 8. 7. Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the appellant in support of the present appeal. None appears on behalf of the respondent either, though names of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant as also the respondent are printed in the daily cause list. 8. On examination of the records, this Court finds that for a quite long time, no one is appearing either on behalf of the appellant or on behalf of the respondent. It appears that with the passage of time, both sides have reconciled and have accepted the finality of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 9. Since this appeal is very old one, and is pending since the year 1975, therefore, this Court examined the records and considered the materials produced by the parties. On examination of records, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. ?