GAYABAI HEMLAL JADHAV Vs. HIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri K.C.Sant, learned Counsel appearing for Revision Petitioner and Shri S.D.Dhongade, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

(2.) The petitioner original opponent in Probate Application No.1/2008 before the trial Court is raising exception to the order passed below Exhibit 28 on 13 th August, 2010 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner. Respondent No.1 herein presented Probate Application before the trial Court requesting for grant of probate in respect of will deed executed by Baburao Zendu Chavan (Dhobi) on 25.04.2011. In the application presented to the trial Court, Respondent No.1 contended that his father had a brother by name Baburao Chavan (Dhobi), who did not have any male successor. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 herein, being the daughters of deceased Baburao, after solemnization of their marriage, went to reside with their husband. Respondent No.1 herein i.e. probate applicant took care of deceased Baburao during his old age and as a recognition of services rendered by Respondent No.1 herein, deceased Baburao executed will deed on 25.04.2001, thereby bequeathing all his properties to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, as such, presented an application, as contemplated by the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate.

(3.) The application was opposed by petitioner no.1 and Respondent No.2 herein by filing a written statement. The authenticity of the will deed, allegedly executed by deceased Baburao, has been questioned by them.