KARTAR CHAND Vs. MATHURA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this second appeal is whether the Will set up by the respondents is a forged document and surrounded by suspicious circumstances which makes the execution of the Will improbable.

(2.) It appears, the suit property was owned and possessed by one Krishni Devi. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the property saying that the defendants were in possession of the property, on the basis of a forged Will and one Janki Devi being the only heir was entitled to inherit the property of Krishni Devi. The defendants resisted the suit and pleaded that they served the deceased Krishni Devi who executed the Will in their favour of her own volition in sound and disposing state of mind.

(3.) Learned trial Court on the appraisal of the evidence found that Krishni Devi was admitted in the hospital immediately before the execution of the Will and allegedly executed the Will next day which circumstance is a suspicious circumstance. Learned trial Judge observed that Krishni Devi was not physically and mentally sound and was not in a position to execute the Will on 23rd April, 1986. Therefore, the Will cannot be held to be a genuine document.