RAMCHANDRA RAMBUX Vs. CHAMPABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises for consideration in this appeal by a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay is whether a will alleged to have been executed by one Ramdhan on 23/05/1947 is genuine or is a fabrication. By this will, Ramdhan is alleged to have bequeathed almost his entire property consisting of 16 fields assessed to land revenue at Rs. 425.00 per annum, five houses, a shop and movables consisting of 800 tolas of gold, 1,000 tolas of silver, Rs. 50,000.00 cash and Rs. 15,000.00 due from debtors as well as cattle, agricultural implements, utensils, etc., to the appellant, and practically excluded his widow, Sitabai and his three married daughters. THE appellant is the grandson of one of the three predeceased uncles of Ramdhan, and the ground on which the widow and the daughters wree practically excluded by Ramdhan is said to be the strained relations which developed between Ramdhan and his wife during his last days.

(2.) RAMDHAN died on 31/10/1948, and Sitabai, who was all along living with him, came into possession of RAMDHAN's property. Admittedly the appellant did not try to disturb her possession. According to him, he allowed Sitabai to remain in possession on his behalf, and that for some time she was managing the estate in a satisfactory way. Later on, however, she, in utter disregard of the appellant's interests, began to give away some portions of the properly to her daughters and strangers, even though she knew that the property had been bequeathed to him by RAMDHAN, and that she was entitled to receive only a maintenance of Rs. 40.00 per month under the will of RAMDHAN. It may be mentioned that RAMDHAN was a resident of Peepalgaon in the district of Parbhani, and the entire property movable as well as immovable is at Peepalgaon itself.

(3.) MR. Dadachanji's grievance, however, is that the entire approach of the High Court to the evidence in this case was wrong, because it first took into consideration the various circumstances, and then judged the credibility of the witnesses in the light of those circumstances. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following observation of Biswas J., in Kristo Gopal v. Baidya Nath, AIR 1939 Cal 87: