ROHINI Vs. ALL CONCERNED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by Smt. Rohini, wife of late R.S. Shankarnarayanan (hereinafter referred as the deceased), who was the petitioner in O.P.No. 1236 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Temporary) being aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-1991 dismissing the O.P., which was filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act) to grant probate of the Will dated 26-9-1989 executed by the deceased.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner - Appellant is one of the two wives of the deceased, who was working as Manager, Bank of Baroda at Coonoor, Nilgiries District in Tamil Nadu and died on 16-1-1990. During his life time he acquired certain movable and immovable properties, which were bequeathed in favour of the appellant and his four sons in the presence of two witnesses, while he was in sound condition of health and good state of mind, by way of Will aforementioned. He bequeathed the flat bearing No. 43, second floor, situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad for life in favour of the appellant without right to alienate and after her life time absolutely in favour of his four sons, i.e., two sons of his first wife by name, R.S. Ganesh and R.S. Kumar and two sons of the appellant herein by name Kiran Babu and Arun Babu. Provident Fund, Gratuity and other service benefits which may amount to Rs. 80,000.00 were bequeathed in favour of the appellant and she is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 from the Bank of Baroda Staff Co-operative Credit Society, Hyderabad, after adjustment of loan and death benefits of the deceased. The value of the above said flat is Rs.1,25,000.00 and the service benefits from the Bank of Baroda after adjustment of loan amount, is Rs. 80,000/- and the amount from Bank of Baroda Staff Co-operative Credit Society, Hyderabad inclusive of death benefits amounts to Rs. 25,000.00. Therefore, she filed the O.P. to grant probate of the Will dated 26-9-1989 executed by the deceased.

(3.) None were made as respondents to the petition. A paper publication was issued in Deccan Chronicle, an English Daily, calling for objections, if any, to allow the petition, but no objections were received. The petitioner-appellant herself was examined as P.W. 1 and marked Ex. P-l