DR. GOPIRAJ Vs. RUGMINI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the 2nd defendant/4th J.D. in a suit for partition. He is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order. He has approached this Court for the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below disallowed opportunity to him to establish the genuineness of Ext.B1 Will, which came into existence subsequent to the decree. One of the parties to the suit on 10.9.1999, executed a Will in favour of the petitioner, which is marked as Ext.B1. The respondent would contend that on 10.2.2006, the same party had executed a Will in favour of the respondent, which is marked as Ext.P1. The question to be decided is as to which among these two Wills is operative. It goes without saying that if both the Wills are found to be genuine, then certainly Ext.P1 would prevail over Ext.B1.