AMAR NATH Vs. GANGA RAM ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the orders of the Courts below granting a succession certification to Ganga Ram respondent who is a pleader practising at Amloh in respect of a sum of Rs. 11,049.61 N.P. lying in the Post Office there in the Saving Bank account in the name of Mst. Ralli deceased. The application of Ganga Ram for the grant of the succession certificate was based on an unregistered will (Exhibit P.A./1) which is stated to have been executed by Ralli on 25th November, 1958. She died on 1st December, 1958 at the age of about 80 years.

(2.) It is not dispute that Mst. Ralli, who was widow of Bija Mal, owned considerable movable as well as immovable property. It appears that the respondent used to act as her Mukhtar in connection with the various dealings relating to her property. Something before 1955 he purchased some land in his own name with the fund supplied by Mst. Ralli. She filed a suit on 2nd June 1955 for a declaration that she was the owner of agricultural land measuring 85 bighas and 14 biswas and that the respondent had no concern with it. It was alleged by her that she had given some money to him to purchase land for her livelihood. He purchased the aforesaid land with her money but for two or three years she had not been given full income of the land and he had managed to get that land entered in the revenue records in his own name. It is mentioned in Exhibit D. 27 (copy of the judgment dated the 14th June, 1955 in the suit) that the respondent admitted the claim of the plaintiff and the suit was accordingly decreed. On 4th October, 1957 Ralli even applied for a mutation to be effected in her favour with regard to the said land pursuant to the decree granted by the Court. The mutation was actually sanctioned on 19th May, 1958, (Exhibit D.29). It is common ground that the will which has been propounded by the respondent and under which the respondent was bequeathed the entire property owned by Ralli was executed by Ralli in what is called the shop of the respondent. It is in evidence that all the attesting witnesses came there and the will was scribed as well as executed by the executrix and attested by the witnesses there. It is apparent from the evidence of the respondent himself that had was present when the will was executed by Ralli. It is recited in the will that she was leaving the entire property to the respondent because he had been serving him and she treated him as her son. It is also in evidence that Ralli wrote a number of letters to the present petitioners who are her husband's brother's grandsons asking them to look after her, but that they did not bother about her at all.

(3.) Now the Courts below have considered the evidence of the attesting witnesses, and one Dhani Ram (D.W.1) who was examined by the present petitioners. The learned District Judge has relied a good deal on the evidence of Dhani Ram who had deposed in cross-examination that he attested the will after making enquiries from Ralli and after satisfying himself about the correctness of the document. The learned District Judge considered that the will did not appear to be on the whole improbable, unnatural and unfair whereby Ralli had left the whole of her property to Ganga Ram.