- (1.)FEELING aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 31-1-2006 passed by learned Second Addl. District Judge, Mhow, District Indore in Civil Original case No. 1-A/2000 (probate) dismissing the application filed by appellant to obtain probate, this appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 (for brevity 'the Act' ).
(2.)AN application under Section 276 of the Act was filed by the appellant Deependra Singh on the averments that Smt. Chandrakala Pal (hereinafter referred to as 'testatrix') wife of Murari Lal Pal executed two Wills dated 26-3-97 and 8-5-97 in his favour. Since, in the earlier Will dated 26-3-97 certain facts could not be mentioned, therefore, for clarification another Will dated 8-5-97 was executed by testatrix. According to the appellant, in these two wills the deceased bequeathed her entire moveable and immoveable property, the description whereof has been mentioned in these two Wills in favour of the appellants. Apart from the moveable and immoveable property, the testatrix was having Saving Account No. 283 in State Bank of Indore, Mhow Branch and another Saving Account No. 1952. In Saving Bank Account No. 283 testatrix was having a sum of Rs. 1,34,034/- and in Saving Account No. 1952 a sum of rs. 4,68,206/- of the testatrix has been deposited. According to the appellant, this amount is required to be paid to him. The Will dated 26-3-97 is a registered will, however, another Will dated 8-5-97 is attested by notary. On these premised pleadings in the application filed under Section 276 of the Act, the appellant prayed to grant of the probates of the aforesaid two Wills.
(3.)RAMESH Chandra Pal, who is respondent No. 2 herein this appeal submitted objections in the probate proceedings and pleaded in the objections that deceased Smt. Chandrakala Pal did not execute any registered Will dated 20-3-97 or another Will dated 8-5-97 in favour of the appellant. It has also been denied that the testatrix bequeathed all her moveable and immovable properties to the appellant by these two Wills. Further contention in the objection is that by those two Wills the appellant did not become owner of the moveable and immoveable properties and other assets of the testatrix. A specific plea has been raised in the objection that the Will is forged and fabricated document. In the special pleas, it has been leaded by the objector Ramesh Chandra that the signatures on these two Wills are different to each other which itself speaks that those two Wills are manufactured in order to grab the property of the testatrix. Further, it has also been pleaded that the Will does not contain the signature of the testatrix and she never executed any Will.