DINA NATH BAKSHI Vs. MADAN MOHAN LAL MAJHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15.1.2003 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 28.8.1978. Vide the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1978 the suit of the plaintiff Madan Mohan Lal Majhu seeking declaration that he be declared as the legal representative of Lal Devi was dismissed. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.1.2003 the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in his favour.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is as follows:

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been countered by learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the will Ex.DW1/1 which has a rider attached to it whereby it stated that after the death of the testator his widow would be the exclusive owner and after her death the property would be owned by her nephews;, the principle effect was to make the widow an absolute owner of this property. Reliance has been placed upon AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 355 Mehma Singh vs. Dhan Kaur and Ors. to support his submission that where the testator in the earlier part of the will confer an absolute estate in favour of his wife, a subsequent clause repugnant to this must be regarded as invalid; it cannot cut down the estate. Reliance has also been placed upon AIR 1940 Privy Council 70 Jagat Singh and Ors. vs. Sangat Singh Ors. Reliance has been placed upon 2010 (9) Scale Subhan Rao and Ors. vs. Parvathi Bai and Ors., 1993 (25) DRJ 338 Smt.Rajrani Sehgal vs. Dr.Parshottam Lal and Ors., AIR 1973 Gujrat 146 Full Bench Shantilal Babubhai and Ors. vs. Bal Chhani and Ors., AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 447 Sangavarapu Venkatasubba Rao vs. Krishnamurthy and Ors., AIR 1951 Orissa 49 Bandura Ramamurty vs. Koppula Vajram and Ors., AIR 1929 Privy Raghunath Prasad Singh and Anr. vs. Deputy Council 283 Commissioner and Ors. and another judgment reported in AIR 1938 Lahore 201 Umrao Singh vs. Baldev Singh to support the said submission.