KRISHNABAI Vs. MAHESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF had filed an application under Section 276 read with Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act for probating the will of her deceased mother, late Mahalakshmi Chintamani. This application on being contested by the respondent, was registered and tried as a suit and dismissed; which judgment is being challenged in this appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of this case are: one Chintamani and his wife Mahalakshmi adopted Maheshwar-respondent as their son and Krishnabai the appellant herein is their natural daughter who is unmarried and remaining as such till now. CKintamani died in the year 1956, and Mahalakshmi, the testatrix hereinafter referred to as such executed, a will on. 23-2-1980 and had it registered under which she has bequeathed her one third share in the family property in favour of only the appellant while disinheriting the respondent. The testatrix died on 7-7-1992. Appellant sought for probating her Will. The respondent entered caveat and denied the Will of having been executed by the testatrix besides contending that it was a "concocted and fabricated" one. Because of the contest it was tried and enquired as a suit.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Judge, appellant examined herself as P. W. 1 and examined the attestor of the Will as P. W. 2. She also produced the original Will as Exhibit P. 1 and death certificate as Exhibit P. 2. Respondent examined himself as D. W. 1 besides producing certified copies of the plaint, vakalath, deposition filed by testatrix'and deposition of appellant vide Exhibits D. 1 to D. 4. Learned Judge has dismissed the suit on the following grounds,-1. That there are suspicious circumstances in the manner of executing the will inasmuch as, in a partition suit filed by the testatrix against the respondent during the year 1986, (six years after the alleged execution of the Will) the testatrix had affixed her L. T. M. to the suit papers Exhibits D. 2 and D. 3 while the plaintiff had not furnished any satisfactory explanation as to how the testatrix affixed her signature to the Will. 2. The Will was attested not by relatives but by the colleagues at work of the propounder. 3. That the Will was not produced by the propounder in the suit O. S. No. 52 of 1986; and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for its non-production.