GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. BAHADAR CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed. The trial Court understood neither the facts of the case nor the relevant law on the matter. The plaintiff claims to succeed to the estate left by Saudagar Mal as his adopted son. When he filed a suit, he challenged the registered will dated 30th March, 1979, set up by Shami defendant. While the suit was at the stage of conclusion, the plaintiff came to know of another registered will dated 28th March, 1979, which was also alleged to have been executed by Saudagar Mal in favour of Sardari Lal defendant and applied to the Court below for permission to produce additional evidence and to show that both the wills were fictitious documents and that neither of the two wills could show that it was executed by Saudagar Mal as they were very much different in material particulars in several respects. The trial Court by order dated 24th March, 1982 rejected the prayer and this is revision against that order.

(2.) The Court below assumed that by execution of will dated 30.3.1979, the earlier will dated 28.3.1979 stood superseded. The matter to be gone into is whether Saudagar Mal executed any will whatsoever and, if he did so, which of the two is the correct will ? Some of the features which may show that the two wills are inconsistent and probably not executed by one and the same person, have been enumerated in paragraph 4 of the grounds of revision. Accordingly, it was necessary to have the will dated 28th March, 1979, also on the record so that the real matter in dispute between the parties could be gone into.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 24th March, 1982, is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff to lead additional evidence is allowed as prayed for.