RAMRAO Vs. SARUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all these four appeals have been filed challenging the judgment dated 31-3-1988 and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge in regular Civil Appeals No. 169/85,172/85,173/ 85 and 178 of 1985 whereby the common judgment dated 5-7-1985 passed by the learned civil Judge, Sr. Dn. , in Special Civil Suit No. 46 of 1980 has been confirmed and the plaintiffs suit for possession has been dismissed. Since the questions involved in these appeals are common, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Brief facts are required to be stated as under :- the original plaintiffs are the nephews of deceased Dalpat who died on 13-1-1979. The defendant Sarubai is the widow of Dalpat whose first marriage was performed with one gulab Bonde and out of the first marriage onkar was born to her. After the death of gulabrao, Sarubai married Dalpat and she was living with him till his death. Dalpat had left the immovable property including agricultural field as well as the house property which is said to have been gifted in favour of the plaintiffs vide gift-deed dated 30-10-1969. The plaintiffs contended that thereafter the relations between Sarubai and Dalpat became strained and therefore Dalpat had executed a Will dated 13-12-1977 (Ex. 74) in their favour bequeathing the property to them, but this Will was revoked in the year 1979. Dalpat had executed his last will (Ex. 78) on 11-1-1979 by which he had bequeathed the property in favour of the plaintiffs. The last Will was registered and was duly attested on 11-1-1979 when Dalpat was in a fit state of mind and he had executed the said Will by putting his thumb impression on it out of love and affection in favour of the plaintiffs as he was frustrated with the behaviour of his wife Saru. Therefore, the plaintiffs instituted four different suits seeking possession on the strength of the Will.

(3.) The defendant Sarubai strongly resisted the suit claim and contended that the last Will dated 11-1-1979 has not been duly proved and it has been executed in suspicious circumstances for which no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs to explain those suspicious circumstances and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the possession of the property which are said to have been bequeathed in their favour.