GAINDILAL Vs. BHURAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that one Jeewan Ram resident of Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur, died on the 29th August, 1947 leaving behind him two sons Bhuramal and Gaindilal. Gaindilal filed a suit against Bhuramal for the partition of property left behind by Jeewan Ram, in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. THEreafter on the 8th October, 1947 his elder brother Bhuramal filed an application for probate of a will alleged to have been executed by Jeewan Ram on the 16th August, 1947. Gaindilal entered a caveat and contested the application pleading ignorance of the said will and also on other grounds. THE District Judge, however, allowed Bhuramal's application and ordered probate of will of Jeewan Ram to be granted to him. It is against that order dated the 12th May, 1948 that Gaindilal has come to this Court.

(2.) IT is contended by the appellant's learned counsel that the alleged will purported to have been written by one Damodar Lal and is attested by four witnesses namely Gopi Nath, Shiv Narain, Mst. Goran and Ganga Ram, that the respondent had examined only Gopi Nath and Mst. Goran and refrained from producing the scribe and other two witnesses and that an adverse inference should be drawn against him from the non-production of all these three persons. IT is also argued that in the life time of the deceased, that the appellant has proved from the evidence of the respondent's own Advocate Mr. Bhagwan Dass that the deceased wanted to execute another will three or four days before his death, but it could not be executed because of some quarrel between the parties and that no reference was made to this will at that time. He proceeds to argue that there was no reason for Jeewan Ram to exclude the appellant's right of inheritance, that the deceased was not pleased with the appellant as mentioned in the will, but that it is definite from the respondent's own statement in cross-examination that there was civil and criminal litigation between him and the deceased, that even if the execution of the will be held to be proved, it was executed under very suspicious circumstances and, therefore, the learned District Judge should not have granted the probate.