SRIMATI INDIRA DEVI Vs. RAMJI SHARMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 05.02.1991 passed in Title Suit No. 27 of 1986, whereunder the Additional District Judge-12th , Munger, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for probate of the Will deed dated 05.11.1984 said to have been executed by deceased Ritlal Mistry.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant Indra Devi filed an application under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for probate of Will said to have been executed by her father Ritlal Mistry on 05.11.1984 with contention that her father Ritlal Mistry, son of Karu Mistry, resident of village-Shankarpur, P.S. Muffasil, District - Munger died on 15.11.1984 at his residence. Before death, Ritlal Mistry executed Will on 05.11.1984 in respect to his property, as detailed in Schedule-I of the application. At the time of execution of Will on 05.11.1984, her father Ritlal Mistry was of sound mind and he had executed the said Will voluntarily without any coercion in her favour at his residence. The Will deed was scribed by Sakhichandar Mandal at the instruction of her father Ritlal Mistry and he put his thumb impression in presence of the attesting witnesses, namely, Dipnaraiain Sharma and Thakur Yadav, who also put their signatures as attesting witnesses on the instruction of her father on the Will deed. The further case of the plaintiff is that Ritlal Mistry died leaving behind him, his three other daughters, namely, Bhago Devi, wife of Late Sheet Narayan Mistry, Resident of village - Shankarpur Nawada, P.S. Muffasil, District - Munger, Tanki Devi, wife of Kant Lal Sharma, resident of Mohalla Mangal Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger and Smt. Sudha Devi, wife of Sitaram Sharma, Resident of village - Daulatpur, P.S. Jamalpur, District-Munger. The plaintiff being the youngest daughter of Ritlal Mistry used to look after him, as such, due to love and affection, he executed Will on 05.11.1984 in her favour.

(3.) On notice, Most. Bhago Devi, Tanki Devi and Sudha Devi appeared and filed their joint contesting written statement with contention that deceased Ritlal Mistry died on 05.11.1984 not on 15.11.1984, as alleged in the petition, and he never executed the alleged Will deed nor the same is his last Will. The alleged Will dated 05.11.1984 is forged, fabricated, fraudulent, invalid and void ab initio. The execution of will deed and it's due attestation are denied. The deceased Ritlal Mistry was old, illiterate, blind and deaf man and he was also a man of weak understanding, suffering from various diseases. At the time of death Ritlal Mistry was aged about 90 years and he was not in a position to understand about wrong and right. All the four daughters of deceased Ritlal Mistry are in common enjoyment of the estate of the deceased after his death. Most. Bhago Devi, who is elder daughter of deceased Ritlal Mistry, became widow in her young age in the year 1951 and she used to live with her father for providing all services to him. Since, Most. Bhago Devi became widow in her young age and was issue-less, due to that reason, she was kept by deceased Ritlal Mistry with him as he had got some landed property. The plaintiff Smt. Indra Devi used to reside at her Sasural in village-Rishipaharpur, P.S. Surajgarha, District-Munger and she used to visit with her husband at her Mayaka casually. The plaintiff Smt. Indira Devi and her husband Arjun Sharma are shrewd and they by bringing to Dipnarain Sharma, Sakhichandra Mandal and Thakur Yadav in their collusion brought into existence the forged Will in question, which cannot be operated. Deceased Ritlal Mistry, besides the property detailed in Schedule-I of the application, possessed other property also which has not been included in the Schedule-I of the application. The alleged Will has not come from proper custody rather the same has been brought by the plaintiff, who claims to be sole beneficiary. The plaintiff has not made parties to the answering defendants purposely in the application filed under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act and she has given her name in the eastern boundary of property, as detailed in item No.2 of Schedule-I of the petition. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and also not entitled for grant of probate, as such, her petition for granting of probate is liable to be rejected.