- (1.) A. K. Banerji, J. Testamentary Case No. 12 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner for grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the estate of one Sulaki Lal since deceased.
(2.) BRIEF facts, as set out in the petition, are that Sulaki Lal died on 24-6-1970 leaving the properties detailed in the schedule annexed to the affidavit. The deceased had prior to his death executed a Will dated 2-11-1963 regarding his properties. The petitioner is one of the grandsons of the deceased testator and is also a beneficiary named in the Will, as such the petitioner is entitled to the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the estate left by the deceased. The petitioner was accompanied by the affidavit of the petitioner annexing a schedule of the properties with regards to which the Letters of Administration was sought. The petition was also accompanied by the affidavit of one Jeet Mal Mishra, Advocate, who is said to have drafted the Will under the instructions of the deceased testator and in whose presence the Will is stated to have been signed by the testator and two attesting witnesses of the said Will. On 21-5-1993 this Court issued notice to the next of kin mentioned in the petition and also directed copies of the notice to be sent to the Board of Revenue, U. P. , Allahabad and the Administrator General and Official Trustee, U. P. , Allahabad. Apart from the same a citation was ordered to the published in one issue of the newspaper 'amrit Prabhat" published in Hindi from Allahabad. In response to the said notice a caveat was filed on behalf of the contesting respondents Harvinder Nath Gupta and three others who are the brothers of the petitioner and the grandsons of the deceased testator. An objection and a joint written statement was filed oh behalf of the said respondents in support of the caveat. If was pleaded therein that the deceased Sulaki Kal never executed any will and the document filed aiongwith the petition is a forged document which does not bear the signature of the testator. It was further pleaded that the alleged will is the result of the dispute between the two sons of the deceased for claim in the alleged properties left by the deceased testator. It was further pleaded that in the year 1962 the deceased had suffered a paralytic attack by which his brain and tongue were affected and he was not in a disposable state of mind on the date when the alleged will is said to have been executed. It was also leaded that the will in question has not been duly and property attested and its genuineness is doubtful. Apart from the same it was further pleaded that the deceased did not leave behind any property as he died in debt and the schedule annexed to this petition is wholly false and the contents thereof the denied. On the basis of the said pleas it was stated that the petitioner was not entitled to the Letters of Administration, as prayed. The petitioner filed a replication to the said written statement denying the allegations made therein and reiterated the contents of the petition. It was stated that the will in question was registered will and was duly and validly executed by the deceased testator. It was denied that the same was not executed in a sound disposable state of mind. It was also stated that the Firm M/s. Sulaki Lal and sons in which 1/4 the share was claimed by the petitioner was in existence when the will was executed in November, 1963 and the said Firm was set up with the assets of Shri Ram Misthan Bhadar. It was further stated that the will was drafted by Shri Jeet Mal Mishra, Advocate, on the instruction of the deceased testator and the will was executed in the presence of the said Jeet Mal Mishra and the tow attesting witnesses who are now dead. It was denied that the testator had incurred any debt during his life time. As the petition was being contested by the respondents the proceedings of the Testamentary Case No. 12 of 1993 was ordered to be converted into a Suit and was renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1994 .
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Court on 3-8-1994: (1) Whether the alleged Will dated 2-11-1963 executed by Sulaki Lal was legally and validly executed by the testator in a sound disposable state of mind ? (2) Whether the attestation of the Will dated 2-11-63 was valid and legal ? (3) Whether the Will dated 2-11-63 was a forged and fabricated document, as alleged? (4) Whether the Firm M/s. Sulaki Lal and Sons was not in existence during the life time of Sulaki Lal, and, therefore, the petitioner can not claim Letters of Administration with regards to items No. 1 and 2 of the Schedule to the Petition ? (5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to Letters of Administration regarding the assets left by Sulaki Lal, If so, then to what extent? (6) Whether the petition for grant of Letters of Administration legally maintainable? (7) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? In support of his case and for proving the Will the plaintiff filed the original Will and also examined himself as P. W. 1 and Shri Jeet Mal Misra, Advocate, as P. W. 2. The defendants, on the other hand, filed photo copy of the registered sale-deed with respect to property No. 86 and 88, Bohadur Ganj, dated 28- 6-1969 as paper No. A-23, photo copy of the partnership dated 4-9-1970 between Sri Nath, Smt. Nanno Devi, Surendra Nath and Rajendra Babu for carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Sulaki Lal and Sons as paper No. A-24 and certified copies of the Plaint of Suit No. 340 of 1991 (Rajendra Pd. Gupta v. Harvinder Nath Gupta and others) filed in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad and the written statement filed by the petitioner in the said, suit, as paper Nos. A-25 and A-26 respectively. The defendants did not produce any oral evidence. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 deals with the question whether the Will was validly executed and duly attested. Consequently, both these issues can be decided under a common head. Issues No. 1 and 2:;