SOPAN PANDHARINATH DADWE Vs. SMT KUSUM BABANRAO DANGE NAGPUR
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sopan Pandharinath Dadwe
Smt Kusum Babanrao Dange Nagpur
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the original defendants who are aggrieved by the decree passed by the appellate Court granting a declaration that the respondent-plaintiff is the absolute owner of field Gat Nos.204, 33 and 344 situated at Kargaon in view of the Will dated 15/01/1990 executed by her father Jagobaji.
(2.) The facts relevant for deciding the appeal are that one Jagobaji and Pandharinath were two brothers. Jagobaji was married with the original plaintiff No.2-Manjulabai. From that wedlock the plaintiff No.1 and her sister Suman were born. According to the plaintiffs, Jagobaji during his life time contracted a second marriage with one Sushilabai-defendant No.2. Jagobaji was having ancestral property and on 01/10/1984 it is stated that he executed a Will in favour of his nephew Sopan who was the son of Pandharinath. Jagobaji did not have any male issue and hence the bequest was made in favour of Sopan. It is then pleaded that in the year 1989 Jagobaji suffered from kidney trouble and the plaintiff No.1 took care of him. After he recovered, on 15/01/1990 said Jagobaji executed another Will in favour of his daughter Kusum. On 27/09/1990 Jagobaji expired and according to the plaintiff No.1 she became owner of the suit property by virtue of said Will. As it was found that the defendants were disputing her entitlement, she filed R.C.S. No.5/1991 seeking a declaration as to her ownership on the basis of Will dated 15/01/1990.
(3.) The defendants filed their written statement at Exhibit-27. The relationship as pleaded between Jagobaji and plaintiff No.2 was admitted. It was also pleaded that the marriage with defendant No.2 took place in the year 1953 and hence it was valid. The execution of the subsequent Will dated 15/01/1990 was denied and it was claimed that in view of registered Will dated 01/10/1984 in favour of defendant No.1, the plaintiff had no title to the suit property. The suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the subsequent Will were pleaded in the written statement.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.