MUNNA LAL Vs. MAMAN SINGH @ MAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under Sec. 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), arises out of the judgment and order dt. 27.08.1997 passed by the District Judge, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Misc. Application No. 6/1977, whereby the trial Court had granted the probate of the will dt. 31.07.1974 in favour of the respondent -applicant, executed by the deceased Babu Lal. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent -applicant Maman Singh had filed an application before the trial Court on 01.02.1977 for grant of the probate in respect of the will which was allegedly executed by the deceased Babu Lal on 31.07.1974 and attested before the Notary Public on 01.08.1974. The trial Court having issued a public notice in the newspaper, the appellant -non -applicant had raised objection against granting of probate in favour of the respondent -applicant. Hence the trial Court had converted the said application into the suit. After framing the issues and considering the evidence on record/the trial Court granted a probate in respect of the will executed by the deceased in favour of the respondent -applicant vide the impugned order dt. 27.08.1997. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. V.S. Yadav for the appellant -non -applicant that the alleged will could not have been executed by the deceased Babu Lal in favour of the respondent -applicant who was a stranger. He submitted that the wife and the son of the deceased Babu Lal had already expired and Smt. Durga Devi, the mother of the respondent Maman Singh was staying as a tenant in the premises of the said Babu Lal, and that she taking undue advantage of the bad habits of Babu Lal, had got executed the alleged will in favour of her son Maman Singh. Taking the Court to the oral evidence led by the parties, Mr. Yadav submitted that the signature on the will was not of Babulal and that there being many contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the respondent -applicant, the alleged will could not be said to have been duly proved. According to him, the very fact that the respondent -applicant had stated in his evidence that he was present when the will was executed by Shri Babu Lal, was sufficient to doubt the intention of the applicant to influence the said Babu Lal for getting the will executed in his favour. In short, according to Mr. Yadav the trial Court had mis -appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned order deserves to be set -aside.

(3.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent -applicant had filed the application for obtaining the probate of the will allegedly executed by the deceased Babu Lal. The said application of the respondent before the trial Court was objected by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was not the son of the deceased but was a stranger. It is true that it was not the case of the respondent that he was the real son of the deceased, however the respondent by examining the witnesses and also by producing the documentary evidence like the voter's list Exhibit -6, Nomination Paper of insurance Exhibit -7, Higher Secondary Certificate Exhibit -9, etc., had proved that the respondent -applicant was being treated as the son of the deceased. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly held that the respondent could not be said to be a stranger. Even otherwise, it is settled legal position that the will executed in favour of the stranger could be held to be a valid will if it was properly executed and proved.