GIRDHARI LAL Vs. PREM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Civil Misc. First Appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 96 CPC against the judgment of learned District Judge, Jaipur dated 6th September, 1971 by which a probate of Will was granted to the applicant -respondent.

(2.) THE applicant -respondent filed an application for grant of probate on 17 -1 -1966 in the court of District Judge Jaipur in respect of the last Will of late Smt. Jamna w/o Ram Kumar, executed on 1 -8 -1960 in favour of the respondent. Smt. Jamna died on 30 -12 -1960. A caveat was entered and in the reply filed on 9 -7 -1966 it was alleged in para No 2 that no Will was made by Smt. Jamna on 1 -8 -1960 and alleged that it was forged document. It was also mentioned in para No. 7 of the same that Smt. Jamna had executed a Will dt. 12 -12 -59 in favour of the appellant which was duly registered and thereafter no Will had been executed by Smt. Jamna. Suraj Narain also filed a reply and took an objection that he is the reversioner of the property of deceased Smt. Jamna and she had no right to execute the Will to defeat his reversionary interest. Learned District Judge framed the following issues:

(3.) MR . S.K. Keshote, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since litigation was pending between Smt. Jamna and father of the respondent, she could not have made the Will in favour of the respondent. He has drawn my attention to a certified copy of the judgment dated 10 -2 -1966 of this Court in Prahlad v. Suraj Narain and Ors. in which Smt. Jamna was also a party. It is stated by the learned Counsel that in his statement Om Prakash has stated that he informed his father Suraj Narain about the second Will in August, 1968, whereas from the judgment mentioned above, it is evident that an application was filed by Suraj Narain father of the respondent -applicant on 21st January, 1966 stating therein that Smt. Jamna had executed 2 Wills one in favour of the appellant and second in favour of son Prem Prakash therefore, plaintiff Prahlad in that case had no claim over the property left by Smt. Jamna. It is, therefore, argued that Prem Prakash is not a reliable witness and the alleged Will made in favour of the respondent is a forged document and no Probate could be granted on the basis of the same.