KAMALA DEI Vs. BALABHADRA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the confirming Judgment of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit property.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS case is that she being the sole heir of her father, Udayanath Gaya (since dead) succeeded to the entire interest of the property of Pandari Bewa, her paternal grand -mother, who was admittedly the recorded holder in respect of the disputed land measuring Ac. 0.73 decimals under plot Nos. 691 694, 1080 and 1251 of village Itamati in the district of Puri (presently Khurda). She fired the suit claiming that the defendant having no manner of right title and interest in the property in question created trouble by forcibly entering into the land on 15 -1 -1975 on the basis of a Will executed by Pardari sometime in the year 1959. The plaintiff claimed that the said Will was the result of undue influence and/or fraud practised on Pandari who was an old, illiterate and Purdanashin lady. The defendant, on the other hand, pleaded that the Will was validly executed Pandari was not a Purdanashin lady and the was in a good state of health and mind at the time of execution of the Will and the said Will was the last testament of Pandari.

(3.) THE substantial point of law for decision of this Court as advanced by Mr. A. K. Mishra learned counsel for the appellant, is whether the Will in question was executed after due compliance with the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Misra though referred to several decisions, but the three decisions reported in 1986 (II) OLR 286, Srimati Bewa and Anr. v. Kasinath Chandra Behera and Anr. 1988 (I)OLR 352, Gopal Chandra Mohanty and Anr. v. Srimati Adarmani Mohanty and Ors. and AIR 1955 SC 346 GirtjaDutta Singh v. Gangotri Dutt Singh, are relevant for appreciation of the point so raised by him.