SMT. BAINABAI RAGHOJI WANKHADE Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application challenges two concurrent orders passed by the Courts below on an application for grant of succession certificate filed by the applicant under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [for short, 'Act of 1925']. The applicant contended in her application that her son Baban Wankhade died on 16.07.2000. She claimed that her son was having strained relations with his wife, respondent no.7 herein and that only the applicant and her grand daughters i.e. respondent nos. 8 to 10 herein were entitled for grant of succession certificate in respect of amounts specified in the application as also securities. It was claimed in the application that respondent no.7, widow of deceased son of the applicant, had illegally obtained and collected the amounts towards LIC Policy, which were required to be deposited by her along with interest.

(2.) By amendment to the application, the applicant sought to rely upon a Will purportedly executed by said deceased Baban Wankhade, wherein he had stated that all the amounts lying in his name should be distributed amongst the applicant and his daughters and that nothing was to be given to respondent no.7 (his wife) because relationship between him and his wife were strained. By the said amendment, a reference was made to the Will but date of the Will was not stated even in the amended application. The said document i.e. Will dated 05-06-2000 was exhibited as Exhibit 71 in the proceedings before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati (trial Court) in R.M.J.C. No.97 of 2000. It is the case of the applicant that although the aforesaid Will deed was specifically relied upon by way of amendment in the application filed by the applicant herein, no consequential amendment was made in the written statement on behalf of respondent nos.7 to 10 and that therefore, there was no denial in respect of the said Will. It is evident from the record that a photocopy of the said Will deed was also placed on record as Exhibit 80 on behalf of the applicant, which was also not denied by contesting respondent nos. 7 to 10.

(3.) The trial Court took into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record and it found that while signatures of one of the two attesting witnesses in the original Will deed Exhibit 71 were scored out, in the photocopy at Exhibit 80 signatures of both the attesting witnesses were found. On an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found that the Will deed at Exhibit 71 was not free from doubt, particularly because the name and signatures of one of the attesting witnesses was scored out. On this basis, the trial Court disbelieved the said Will and held that the application filed by the applicant herein was required to be considered simply, without taking into consideration the existence of the said Will. On this basis, the trial Court allowed the aforesaid application, holding that the applicant and respondent nos. 7 to 10 were legally entitled to receive equal share in accordance with law.