VIMAL Vs. RAMKRISHNA MARYA PATIL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants. We did not call upon the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to make his submission.

(2.) Mr. Mhamane, learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge on two grounds only. Firstly, Mr. Mhamane urges that the learned Judge ought to have held that the will has not been proved to be genuine and secondly it has been urged that the defendants cannot claim any title on the basis of the will without obtaining probate of the will.

(3.) We have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge and we have no hesitation to state that the learned Single Judge has appreciated the evidence on record in proper manner. It has been urged before us that there was no good reason for the testator to bequeath property to his brothers i.e. defendants Nos. 1 to 5. We have noted that appreciable portion of property was bequeathed to the deceased's wife and the daughter. The wife has been given about four acres of the land and dwelling house to have life interest therein and the remained was given to the daughter; while about seven acres of land were given to brothers-defendant Nos. 1 and 3 jointly. This division of property cannot raise any suspicion whatsoever. It has been urged that the Sub- Registrar, who has been examined to prove the genuineness of the will, was examined after a long gap of about four years and that should make his evidence unreliable. We are not all in a position to agree with such blanket proposition. Since we are in agreement with all the reasons stated by the learned Judge to come to this conclusion that the will is genuine, we need not repeat all of them. We are fully satisfied that the learned Judge recorded a correct finding that the will was genuine, executed by the testator with due testamentary capacity and in a manner required by law.