OM PRAKASH Vs. MISRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the II Additional District Judge, Banda dated 30.4.1988 by which he has refused to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellant, sought on the basis of the alleged Will dated 7.2.1986 executed by one Baura, son of Shiv Dayal in respect of amount of Rs.24,749.13 p. deposited in the Central Bank in Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that appellant, Om Prakash is the son of Misri Lal and nephew of deceased Baura who died on 11.2.1986 leaving behind his two brothers, namely, Misri Lal and Durga Prasad. The appellant had one brother, namely, Sri Vijay Kumar. The appellant applied for succession certificate in respect of amount of Rs.24,749.13 p. deposited by Baura, son of Shiv Dayal, in Central Bank in Saving Bank account and Fixed Deposit on the basis of the alleged Will dated 7.2.1986, alleged to have been executed in his favour. On the application, proclamation was issued and the publication was made in newspaper "New Karmyog Prakashan". Durga Prasad, brother of the deceased, filed an objection stating that the deceased never executed any Will and the Will dated 7.2.1986 was forged and had been prepared with the connivance of the applicant's own persons. It appears that in the alleged Will, which is Annexure-1 to the affidavit, on the side of the Will, there are signatures of Baura and one Sri Kanhaiyalal Vidyarathi and Phool Singh, Advocate. Sri Kanhaiyalal Vidyarathi died. However, in the proceeding, the statements of appellant-Om Prakash and Sri Phool Singh, Advocate were recorded wherein both admitted the execution of the Will in favour of the appellant. The court below has declined to issue succession certificate on the ground that the alleged Will filed by Om Prakash bears the signature of Baura at the lower portion in the left side margin and similarly signatures of two witnesses were also available on the same page; it was not registered and the reasons assigned for not registering was that the appellant was in hurry however, it has not been believed on the ground that when it is claimed that Baura had come to the court to execute the Will why he had no time to get it registered. The signature of Baura had not been got compared with any other admitted signatures though Baura was the employee of Central Bank, but the signature of Baura is also available on the back of the alleged Will; the signature available in front portion and on the back portion differs and it appears that both signatures are forged; No relation of Sri Kanhaiyalal Vidyarathi and Sri Phool Singh, Advocate has been shown with the deceased. It is not natural that a man going to execute a Will would not like to call any of his family members except the person in whose favour the Will was desired to be executed; it is also surprising that the Will was executed at the fag end of life and Baura died after 4 days from the date of execution of the Will.

(3.) Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.