PREM CHAND GUPTA Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises in connection with a Will (Ex. PI) alleged to have been executed on 12-6-1962 in favour of the appellant Prem Chand Gupta, by one Parbati Devi. The Will purports to bequeath the following properties : (1) half share inner portion in house No. 401, situated in Chitla Darwaza, Delhi, (2) one house double storey, bearing Municipal No. 33, Lal Kurti Chhota. Meerut Cantt., U.P. and (3) moveable properties. The Will is in English and is signed in Hindi and also bears her thumb marks. The testatrix stated in the Will that life is uncertain and she had become old and that her other legal heirs were her enemies and wanted to kill her. Therefore, she appointed the appellant Gupta as executor with the stipulation that after her death the said executor shall be the exclusive owner of the said properties entitled to sell, mortgage or transfer the said properties as legal heir of the testatrix and that all the ceremonies upon her death shall be performed by him.

(2.) She died on 24-10-1962. Gupta applied for letters of administration on 29-1-1963 under section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Will was challenged by Bal Kishan Dass, Jai Kishan Dass, Radhey Sham and Shayam Sunder Lal, sons of one Kesho Ram, on the one hand by objections filed on 8-3-1963 and Mool Chand, on the other on 1-4-1963. Bal Kishan, etc. were the collaterals of the husband of the sister of Parbati Devi, while Mool Chand is the son of the brother of her husband and even claimed that he had been adopted by the deceased.. Their contention was that while Parbati Devi belonged to the caste of Goldsmiths, the legatee Prem Chand is a Bania A by caste and is a stranger to the family. Parbati Devi was not of sound disposing mind and was not capable of understanding the Will as she was suffering from paralysis, was hard of hearing, was of very weak sight and was illiterate. She did not know English, the language in which the. Will was written. It was also alleged that under the terms a compromise dated 22-12-1955 in a suit filed by Babu Ram and others, she could not bequeath the property to any one except Mahant Kanhai Ram.

(3.) The learned District Judge by his order dated 9-12-1963 allowed the prayer for grant of letters of administration to Gupta. Bal Kishan and others did not file any appeal but instead opened another front and filed a civil suit No. 624164 for declaration that the Will was forged, fictitious, illegal and void. The trial court decreed the suit on 1-5-1965. But the learned Additional District Judge reversed the decree on 10-3-1966. He has observed that the execution of the Will and grant of prabte were not disputed but what was disputed was the competence of the deceased to make the Will in violation of the terms of the aforesaid compromise. That contention was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. There they lost the battle.