BADRILAL Vs. SURAJ KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the judgment & decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bundi, accepting the appeal and setting aside the judgment & decree passed by the Munsif, Bundi and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the will executed by the deceased Jagannath on 21. 6. 66 in favour of Badrilal (defendant appellant) was invalid.

(2.) SMT. Suraj Kanwar (plaintiff) filed the present suit stating that she is the validly married wife of Jagannath who is alleged to have made a will on 21. 6. 1966 in favour of Badrilal depriving her from the ancestral property of the joint Hindu family.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, the learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the requirement of S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,. have not been fulfilled in this case. Shri Bhandari has further submitted that Sheokaran (DW 2) who has been examined as an attesting witness, has stated on oath in the court that Jagannath had executed the 'will' and he had signed in his presence but since he was an illiterate, he could not recognise the signatures of Jagannath. Sheokaran (Dw 2) has of course proved his own signatures on the 'will'. He has further stated that the 'will' was scribed by Namonarain. In cross examination, he has stated that Mangilal Patwari was another attesting witness, Sheokaran (Dw 2) does not say that Mangilal has also signed in his presence as attesting witness. ON further cross examination, Sheokaran (Dw 2) stated that he does not know Khushalchand, whereas. Durgashanker (Dw 3) has been examined by the defendant as scribe of the 'will', who has stated that Sheokaran and Khushal Chand had attested the 'will'.