G. PARAS SINGH MUNOTH Vs. GYANLATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Side Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff in T.O.S.No.12 of 2009 challenging the dismissal order passed by the learned single Judge holding that the Will dated 14.07.1986 has not been proved.

(2.) Brief Facts:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Will is a registered one. Even the first respondent has not stated anything nor denied the execution. It is her case that the Will has been destroyed. Though she has stated that there was a subsequent Will, the same has not been produced. The delay per se cannot be a ground to disbelieve the Will. The learned single Judge has not considered the evidence available as a whole. The original Will could not be produced since it was under the custody of the first respondent. P.W.2 is the one who attested the Will. The mere discrepancy in the name would not make his evidence unbelievable. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed.