ARJUN RAI Vs. RAJENDRA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment dated 30.09.1997 passed by Sri R.K.Rateria, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna in title suit no.6 of 1993/probate case no.42 of 1989 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for grant of probate.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed the said probate case no.42 of 1989 for the grant of probate in respect of a Will said to have been executed by one Lakhpatia Devi on 24.11.1987. THE defendant- respondent filed objection, therefore, according to provision as contained in Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, the probate case was converted to regular suit and it was renumbered as title suit no.6 of 1993.

(3.) MR. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondent submitted that there are many suspicious circumstances which the plaintiff has not explained at all. The witnesses have stated that the Will was written on 23.11.1987. In the Will itself, the scribe has mentioned that it was written on 23.11.1987 and handed over to Lakhpatia Devi. There is no explanation as to why the same was not read over and explained to her and as to why she did not put her L.T.I. on 23.11.1987 instead of the deed was read over and explained to her and the witnesses put signature on 24.11.1987. This is one of the suspicious circumstances. According to the plaintiff, the Will was found from the box of Lakhpatia Devi in presence of many villagers but not a single villager has been examined. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are highly interested and related person. There is no reason as to why the mother will deprive her son from inheritance by executing Will. This is another suspicious circumstance. The learned counsel further submitted that the Registry office was very near to her residence but the Will was not registered. This is another suspicious circumstance. Likewise, the learned Court below has considered various other suspicious circumstances and, therefore, rightly dismissed the suit. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the First Appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.