MADANLAL JAVANMAL JAIN Vs. BHABUTMAL HIRACHAND SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1.

(2.) APPELLANT is the original Opponent No.5. He has challenged the judgment and order passed by District Judge, Ratnagiri dated 31/01/1987 whereby the Petition filed by Respondent No.1 for grant of Letters of Administration to administer the estate of deceased Chamanlal with a copy of the Will attached to the said Petition, was allowed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is inherent contradiction in the statement of Respondent No.1 herein in respect of execution of the Will itself. He invited my attention to paras 9 and 10 of his evidence and also to para 14. He invited my attention to answer given by Respondent No.1 in his cross-examination wherein he admitted that the deceased had told him that he wanted to go home to execute the Will so that he will keep it in his cupboard. He submitted that in para 14 of his cross-examination, he has stated that on the copy of the Will which was with him, the date was shown as 11-7-1973 and that he had made noting of that date on the basis of the copy of the Will and, therefore, he stated that he had an impression that the Will was executed on 11-7-1973. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that all these facts clearly indicate that the Will was planted by Respondent No.1 in his cupboard and, therefore, he had immediately made an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for making inventory of the house. He submitted that the main reason was that the Respondent No.1 having fabricated the Will and having kept it in a cupboard, had deliberately taken steps of making an application for preparing inventory. The learned Counsel then invited my attention to the statement of Respondent No.1 who has stated that he was not aware when Chamanlal got his Will typed and that he did not go to the house of Mr. Limaye at any time with Chamanlal and that a carbon copy was handed over to him by Chamanlal which was in his custody throughout. The learned Counsel submitted that if the copy of the Will was with Respondent No.1, he should have made a reference about this Will in the application which was preferred by him for sealing the house of the deceased Chamanlal. He submitted that this itself indicated that the Will was subsequently planted by Respondent No.1 and it was fabricated subsequently. He submitted that this clearly indicated that Respondent No.1 had used signature of the deceased which was obtained on a blank paper and, thereafter, a Will was prepared and the signatures of attesting witnesses were taken.