TRIBHOVANDAS M. RUGANI Vs. VIMAL VASANTRAO DHURANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question which falls for consideration in these four testamentary suits is whether the judgment pronounced in an earlier testamentary suit in respect of the same will and estate of the deceased is a judgment in rem and under Section 41 of the Evidence Act is conclusive of the question decided and that the defendants herein are concluded by that judgment and cannot reopen the same question. The proposition is simple but has come under fire in view of the judgment of this Court in Maneklal V. Shah v. Jagdish C. Shah (1969) 72 BomLR 719 and on other points.

(2.) THE background of the disposed suit and the present four suits coming up for hearing before me can be briefly summarised as follows: -

(3.) THE deceased had made a will dated January 8, 1973. On the next day he had the will registered with the Sub -Registrar of Bandra, Bombay. After the death of the deceased on January 28, 1975, his four sons went to the office of the Sub -Registrar at Bandra on April 7, 1975 and took charge of the envelope treasuring the Will of their father. They did not succumb to the temptation to open the precious envelope immediately to see how their father had distributed his fortunes and wealth among them and others. On April 13, 1975, the envelops containing the will was opened in the presence of the possible beneficiaries and the will was read out to those assembled by one Vasantrao Rane, brother -in -law of one of the sons of the deceased.