RAGHUNATH CHAND Vs. K NARINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAO 31 OF 1977 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 9.11.1976 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI, IN PROBATE CASE NO. 15/1969 GRANTING PROBATE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY MENTIONED AT SERIAL NOS. 1 TO 5 IN SCHEDULE-B WHILE GIVING PROPERTIES MENTIONED AT SERIAL NOS. 6 AND 7 TO THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN.

(2.) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS NOTED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, ARE THAT - "A PETITION UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT FOR GRANT OF PROBATE OF THE WILL DATED 29.8.66 OF SHRI MANMOHAN LAL LAKHANPAL ALIAS MANMOHAN LAL DIWANA WAS FILED. SHRI DIWANA DIED ON 7.12.68 LEAVING BEHIND A SISTER, LAJWANTI, AND HER SON RAGHUNATH CHAND. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS IS THAT LAKHANPAL HAD MADE A WILL AND APPOINTED THEM AS THE EXECUTORS OF HIS WILL. IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE DECEASED, THE PETITIONERS HAD ALSO INCLUDED THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE DECEASED. IT IS ADMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE DECEASED IN THE WILL HAD LEFT THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AND HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND TO HIS SISTER AND NEPHEW. THE PROBATE IS SOUGHT ONLY IN REGARD TO THE REMAINING ESTATE OF THE DECEASED. THE PETITION IS CONTESTED BY THE SISTER AND THE NEPHEW. THEY HAVE PLEADED THAT LAKHANPAL HAD LEFT NO WILL. ON THE PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES, THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE FRAMED : 1.WHETHER SHRI MANMOHAN LAL VALIDLY EXECUTED THE WILL IN DISPUTE WITH FULL AND SOUND DISPOSING MIND? 2.RELIEF.

(3.) IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE ME BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE WILL IN QUESTION WAS DOUBTFUL INASMUCH AS THE ATTESTING WITNESSES DID NOT SIGN IN PRESENCE OF EACH OTHER NOR DID THE TESTATOR SIGN BEFORE THEM. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COURT BELOW WRONGLY HELD THE DOCUMENT TO BE A WILL WHEREAS IN FACT IT WAS A TRUST DEED.