CHETAN DAYAL Vs. ARUNA MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following additional issue is framed on the pleadings of the parties:- Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and the requisite fee has been paid on it? OPP

(2.) THE learned counsel for plaintiff also wants one issue with respect to jurisdiction of this Court to decide the genuineness and validity of the Will set up in the plaint another issue on the maintainability of the suit.

(3.) IN T. Venkata Narayana (supra), the scope of the suit was limited to interpretation of the compromise decree passed in the partition suit. The only question before the Supreme Court was as to whether the respondent was entitled to adduce secondary evidence to prove the alleged Will said to have been executed in her favour. In that case, a compromise decree for partition came to be passed by the District Court. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed for perpetual injunction against alienation of the said property. On death of the defendant, the respondent came on record as her legal heirs. They claimed that the deceased defendant had executed a Will in their favour. The question which came up for consideration before Supreme Court was as to whether the respondents were entitled to adduce secondary evidence to prove the Will which they were setting up. It was in this context that Supreme Court observed that a same suit for injunction could not be converted into a suit for probate of a Will which has to be proved, according to law, in the Court having competence and jurisdiction, according to the procedure provided under the Indian Succession Act and a mere suit for injunction could not be converted into a probate suit.