K.P.Singh - (1.) SHORN of unnecessary details the plaintiff petitioner has claimed Bhumidhari and Sirdari plot of one Nathu Lal, being adopted son, as well as placing reliance upon the Will dated 2-12-1966 alleged to have been executed by aforesaid Nathu Lal. The plaintiff petitioner is the son of a brother-in-law of Nathu Lal.
(2.) THE contesting defendant Ram Sahai has denied the claim of the plaintiff petitioner and has asserted that he being daughter's son of Nathu Lai, is entitled to the property belonging to aforesaid Nathu Lal. He has also placed reliance on the Wills alleged to have been executed by Nathu Lal on 20-2-1966 as well as on 3-1-1967. Other legal pleas have been raised by the defendant contesting opposite party as is evident from the issues framed in the seven suits filed by the plaintiff- petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court have given judgment for the plaintiff petitioner but in second appeal the plaintiff petitioner has lost. Therefore, aggrieved by the judgment of the second appellate court the plaintiff petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the second appellate court has patently erred in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court. It has been stressed before me that the second appellate court had no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence on record and to come to conclusions arrived contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the Court of fact.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgment of the second appellate court. He has emphasized that the will relied upon by the plaintiff-petitioner was written in Urdu and that neither the attesting witnesses nor the executant of the will knew Urdu script, therefore, the document was not proved and the first two courts had illegally accepted that document in evidence, therefore, the second appellate court was fully justified in disturbing the judgment of the first two courts. Second submission raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party is to the effect that the will in favour of the plaintiff petitioner is unnatural in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the first two courts below acted illegally in accepting the document in favour of the plaintiff petitioner. It has been stressed before me that the fight between the parties is between a legal heir under section 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act and a person who is not legally entitled to the property of aforesaid Nathu Lal, tenure-holder. It has also been stressed that in the will dated 2-12-1966 there is no mention of the will alleged to have been executed on 20-2-1966 in favour of the contesting opposite party. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the first two courts took perverse view in accepting the will in favour of the plaintiff petitioner.;