RAMCHANDRA BABURAO APTE Vs. BHIMRAO BABURAO APTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is by the original defendants. The respondent is the original plaintiff. According to the case of the respondent, the suit property was originally owned by one Baburao Laxman Apte. The appellants and the respondent are the sons of said Baburao. Baburao had six sons and two daughters. Baburao died on 03rd February, 1975. The respondent is relying upon the registered Will dated 13th January, 1975 allegedly executed by late Baburao. The respondent had filed Misc. Civil Application No.69 of 1976 praying for grant of letters of administration on the basis of said Will. By order dated 15th June, 1980 the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli declined to grant letters of administration on the ground that there was no property of deceased which was required to be administered. However, the learned Judge held that execution of Will has been established. The respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit property on the ground that under the said Will there is a bequest of the suit property made in his favour.

(2.) The appellants contested the suit by contending that as Misc. Civil Application No.69 of 1976 was dismissed, they had no opportunity to challenge the order passed on the said application. Their contention is that the respondent has taken undue advantage of mental and physical weakness of deceased Baburao and he got executed the Will from deceased Baburao. The contention of the appellants is that there are suspicious circumstances under which the alleged Will was executed and there was no free consent of the deceased Baburao.

(3.) The learned trial Judge held that the respondent has proved that he has become the exclusive owner of the suit property in view of the Will dated 13th January, 1975 executed by the deceased Baburao. The trial Court held that the findings recorded in Misc. Civil Application No.69 of 1976 were binding on the appellants. It must be stated here that both the parties had filed a pursis in the trial Court stating that they were not desirous of leading the oral evidence.