ACHARYA ARUN HARIKRISHNA Vs. NO RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jamshed Kavina on behalf of the appellants.

(2.) By way of the present appeal, the appellants challenge judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Halvad, in probate application being Civil Misc. Application No. 3 of 1999, dtd. 31/7/2002, whereby the learned Civil Court had rejected the probate application.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Jamshed Kavina for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgment and order requires interference, more particularly since the learned Civil Court had completely misdirected itself. Learned Advocate Mr. Kavina, at the outset, would draw the attention of this Court to the probate application and would submit that the cause title of the probate application would show the applicants No. 1 to 3 had preferred the probate application through applicant No.4-power of attorney holder Smt. Jyotiben. Learned Advocate would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to the prayer sought for in the probate application, which would show that the probate with regard to the properties mentioned in a Will dtd. 2/5/1991 of deceased Muktaben Acharya was requested to be granted in favour of the applicants of the probate application. Learned Advocate would submit that a perusal of the cause title and prayer clause making it abundantly clear that the applicants-appellants herein had preferred the probate application through their power of attorney and whereas the prayer clause made it specifically clear that the probate was to be granted in favour of the applicants. Learned Advocate would submit that inspite of the same, one of the considerations on which the probate application had been rejected by the learned Civil Court was that in some of the exhibits with the probate application, the power of attorney appears to have stated that probate may be issued in her favour.