- (1.) This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 127, 216 and 224 of 1971 which arise out of the same judgment of District Judge, Ambala, dated April 12, 1971.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Devi Dayal was a resident of Ambala Cantt. and he died on November 5, 1966. it is alleged that he executed a will dated July 2, 1965 by which he created a trust and appointed Madan Lal Prithvi Raj and Radhe Shyam as trustees. They filed an application for grant of probate (Probate petition No. 12/2 of 1966 in respect of the assets of the deceased on tho basis of the will dated July 2, 1965, Exhibit A.1. Shrimati Kamla and her sister Shrimati Parvati, since deceased, filed a second application for probate (Probate petition No. 4/2 of 1967) in respect of assets of the deceased on the basis of the will alleged to have been executed on October 1, 1966, Exhibit AW 9/8. Jagdish Chand filed a third petition for probate (Probate Petition No. 3/2 of 1967) on the basis of the will dated October 30, 1966, Exhibit AW 17/1 alleged to have been executed by the deceased in his favour. It was gut registered after the death of the deceased on January 16, 1967. All the petitions were contested.
(3.) At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions were consolidated and the evidence was recorded in petition No. 12/2 of 1966. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the petitions made by Madan Lal and others and Jagdish Chand are not maintainable in the present form ? (2) Whether the petition of Jagdish Chand is bad for non-joinder of parties (Parbati Devi and Kama Devi)? (3) Whether the petition by Jagdish Chand is not maintainable as the amended petition has not been filed? (4) Whether the will dated 2-7-1965 was duly executed and attested by the testator Sh. Devi Dayal? (5) Whether the will dated 1-10-1966 was validly executed by the testator Sh. Devi Dayal in favour of petitioners (Parbati Devi and Kamla Devi) ? (6) Whether the will dated 30-10-1966 was duly executed by the testator Devi Dayal in favour of Jagdish Chand petitioner ? (7) Whether the will dated 30-10-1966 has revoked the previous wills dated 2-7-1965 and 1-10-1966 ? (8) Whether the will dated 1-10-1966 has revoked the wi11 dated 2-7-965 ? (9) Relief. He held that the petitions of Madan Lal and others and Jagdish Chand were maintainable in the present form, that petition of Jagdish Chand as not bad for non-joirder of Srimat, parlati and Kamla Devi, that it was not necessary for Jagdish Chand to file an amended petition, that will dated July 2, 1965 was duly proved and that the wills dated October 1, 1966 and October 30, 1966 had not been proved. It was further held that in view of the findings on issues Nos. 5 and 6, issues Nos. 7 and 8 did not arise. Consequently, he accepted the Probate Petition No. 12/2 of 1966 filed by Madan Lal and others and granted probate of the will dated July 2, 1965. It may be mentioned at this stage that Shrimati Parbati died during the pendency of the proceedings be ore the District Judge and Kanshi Ram. her father, was brought on record as her legal representative. Three appeals have been filed against the judgment, two by Shrimati Kamla and Kichan Chand (F.A O. No. 224/171 in probate petition No. 12 x 2 of 1066 and F.A.O. 127/71 in probate petition No. 4/2 of 1967) and one by Jagdish Chand (F.A.O. No. 216 of 1971 in probate petition No. 3/2 of 1967).;