MAHADEV TUKARAM VETALE Vs. STJGANDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High court of Bombay summarily dismissing the appellants' first appeal without assigning any reason.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows. Dadu and Tukaram were brothers. The appellant Mahadev is the son of Tukaram. The first plaintiff Sugandha is the daughter of Kisabai. Kisabai claims to be the wife of Dadu. Dadu died at a ripe old age of over 80 years, on October 26, 1968. It is said that on July 24, 1968, he had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs bequeathing his interest in his family properties. On the strength of that will the plaintiff have brought the present suit for partition as well as other incidental reliefs. The suit was resisted mainly by the first defendant on the ground that the will put forward is not a genuine will and the deceased Dadu's mental condition on the date he is said to have executed the will was such that he could not have been in a sound disposing state of mind. Further plea of the first defendant was that Kisabai was not the wife of Dadu and Sugandha was not his daughter.

(3.) The trial court rejected the contention of the first defendant. It first examined the genuineness of the will. It came to the conclusion that the will in question was a genuine will and thereafter partly relying on the recitals in the will and partly on other evidence came to the conclusion that Kisabai was the wife of Dadu and Sugandha was his daughter. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court the first defendant went up in appeal to the High Court of Bombay, The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal with one word "dismissed". The question for decision is whether the appeal raised any triable issue. If the appeal did raise any triable issue then the High Court was not justified in summarily dismissing the appeal.