WALTER MATHIAS Vs. LILLY MATHIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) The dispute in this case deals with the right of the parties to succeed to the estate of one A. C. Mathias. The appellant is admittedly the illegitimate son of A. C. Mathias and the respondent is his daughter. The appellant prayed for the grant of a probate in respect of a will dated 23.2.1955 (Ex. P-I) alleged to have been made by A. C. 1 Mathias under which the appellant is given the bulk of the property of A. C. Mathias, situated in the former State of Mysore. The daughter, the respondent herein, has been practically disinherited. However, she is given the right to receive the interest on a sum of Rs. 5,000.00. The subject matter of the will consists of extensive properties in the District of Chikmaglur consisting of gardens, wet-lands and dry-lands. The appellant who is the propounder of the will has not given evidence in support of his own case. He was the best witness to speak to the circumstances under which the will came to be executed by A. C. Mathias and the reasons for disinheriting the respondent. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for his non-examination. The appellant depended upon the evidence of one Sheshagiri Bhatta who is alleged to be the attestor of the will. We have gone through his evidence and also the evidence of another witness namely Ganpati Bhatta who had nothing to do with the preparation and execution Of the will as such. The High Court found that the evidence adduced by the appellant in support of the will was not sufficient in the eye of law to grant the probate particularly because the will was an inofficious one. We agree with the conclusion reached by the High Court in this case. There is no ground for interference with the judgment of the High Court by which it has declined to grant the probate of the will in question. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.