VIPIN PARERA Vs. DAVID LAGHRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Correctness of the judgment rendered in the Misc. Appeal No. 146/94, preferred under S. 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the learned single Judge of this Court has affirmed the orders passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Misc. Judicial Case No. 70/87 and Misc. Judicial Case No. 86/87, is called in question in this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under S. 276 of the Act for grant of probate in respect of the properties of one Mrs. Mavis Ada Lynch, on the ground that she had executed a Will on 18-6-1983 in their favour bequeathing of her movable and immovable properties. It was averred in the said application that the Will was written in her own hand and she had executed it. The present appellant, the caveator, did not file any formal objection to resist the application but filed an application forming the subject-matter of Misc. Judicial Case No. 86/86 for grant of probate on the basis of subsequent Will executed by Mrs. Lynch. In the said application the present appellant claimed that Mrs. Lynch had executed a Will dated 15-8-1987 in his favour and she did so on account of the fact that he was living in the same Bungalow and was known to her for the last two decades. It was also pleaded that she was managing her affairs and performed the last rites. The respondents herein vehemently opposed the application under S. 276 of the Act at the instance of the appellant herein. They denied the execution of the Will dated 15-8-1987. They also disputed the fact that the appellant lived with Mrs. Lynch. They also pleaded that Mrs. Lynch was not in fit condition to execute the Will. They also took the stand that the Will was got executed through Shri Jagdish Tiwari, Advocate who was on friendly terms with the appellant and the attesting witnesses.

(3.) The Court of first instance accepted the Will dated 18-6-83 as validly executed and attested, and accordingly granted probate to the respondents. He did not accept the Will dated 15-8-87 and held it to be a suspicious document. It is to be noticed here that the appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 146/94 challenging the order passed in Misc. Judicial Case No. 70/87 and later on paid the Court-fee and challenged both the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge.