Himachal Pradesh High Court
Soma Devi vs Of on 16 November, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 243 of 2013 .
Judgment reserved on: 09.11.2016 Date of decision: 16 . 11. 2016.
Soma Devi ...Appellant/Plaintiff.
Versus
of
Mast Ram ..Respondent/Defendant.
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Appellant : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The plaintiff is the appellant, who has lost in both the Courts below and has filed the second appeal praying therein for setting aside the judgments and decrees so passed by the Courts below.
2. The plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') sought a declaration to the effect that the alleged Will dated 14.6.2000 allegedly executed by Paras Ram in favour of the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant'), was fictitious and is the result of undue influence and, therefore, he be restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering in the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 213, Khatauni No. 240, Khasra Nos. 701, 713, Kita-2, measuring 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 2 3-16-17 situated in Muhal Dehar/75, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. .
3. The plaintiff claimed herself to be the legally wedded wife of Paras Ram, who expired on 19.5.2001, that too, after suffering long ailment. It was claimed that the plaintiff was the sole surviving legal heir of Paras Ram, who was owner in possession of the suit land and had of expired without leaving behind any Will regarding the suit land. It was further averred that she came to know about the forged and fictitious Will rt when the same was presented before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Sundernagar. It was also contended that Paras Ram was not in a sound disposing mind due to long ailment and had therefore not executed the Will, which is the result of undue influence. Hence the suit.
4. The defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing written statement wherein preliminary objection regarding locus standi was raised. On merits, it was claimed that the plaintiff was the divorced wife of Paras Ram and, therefore, she has no right, title and interest over the suit land in any manner whatsoever. It was pleaded that after getting divorce from Paras Ram, the plaintiff had contracted second marriage and was therefore, not entitled to the property left behind by him. It was further pleaded that Paras Ram had executed a Will on account of the services rendered by the defendant and the same was registered on 14.6.2000 and it was by virtue of this Will that the defendant had now become owner in possession of the suit land. It was lastly contended that the Will was genuine and valid and accordingly dismissal of the suit alongwith costs was prayed for.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 35. In her replication, the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in totality and refuted the averments as contained in the written .
statement.
6. On 17.5.2003, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of Paras Ram of and she inherited his property as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land?
OPP
3.
rt Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP
4. Whether Paras Ram executed a due and valid Will in favour of the defendant on 14.6.2000 as alleged? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD
6. Whether the Will dated 14.6.2000 executed by Paras Ram in favour of the defendant is a result of undue influence as alleged? If so, to what effect? OPD
7. Relief.
7. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal preferred against such judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi vide its judgment and decree dated 21.12.2012.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, the appellant has filed the instant appeal which has been admitted by this Court on 10.6.2013 on the following substantial question of law:
"1. Whether the Courts below have misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the Will (Exhibited DW-2/A) is a genuine document?"::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 4
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.
.
10. At the outset, it may be noticed that the plaintiff had not disputed the execution of the Will but has only claimed the same to be an outcome of fraud and is a result of undue influence. Therefore, the first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has of failed to raise these pleas as contemplated under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC which reads as follows:
rt "4. Particulars to be given where necessary.- In all cases in which the party pleadings relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
11. The answer to this question is definitely in the negative for the simple reason that apart from using the words like fraud, undue influence, not genuine, there is no specific particulars having set-forth and it is more than settled that a vague of general plea can never serve this purpose and the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence and the unfair advantage obtained by the other.
12. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and others AIR 1967 SC 878 wherein it was held as under:
"10. Before, however a court is called upon to examine whether undue influence was exercised or not, it must scrutinize the pleadings to find out that such a case has been made out and that full particulars of undue influence have been given as in the case of fraud. See Order 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 5 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This aspect of the pleading was also given great stress in the case of Ladli Prasad Jaiswal (1964) 1 SCR 270: (AIR 1963 SC 1279) above referred to. In that case it was .
observed (at p. 295 of SCR): (at p. 1288 of AIR):
"A vague of general plea can never serve this purpose; the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence, and the unfair advantage obtained by the other."
"25. There was practically no evidence about the domination of of Balaram over Prasanna at the time of the execution of the deed of gift or even thereafter. Prasanna, according to the evidence, seems to have been a person who was taking an active interest in the management of the property even shortly before his death. The circumstances obtaining rt in the family in the year 1944 do not show tht the impugned transaction was of such a nature as to shock one's conscience. The plaintiff had no son. For a good many years before 1944 he had been making a living elsewhere. According to his own admission in cross-examination, he owned a jungle in his own right (the area being given by the defendant as 80 bighas) and was therefore possessed of separate property in which his brother or nephew had no interest. There were other joint properties in the village of Parbatipur which were not the subject matter of the deed of gift. It may be that they were not as valuable as the Lokepur properties. The circumstances that a grandfather made a gift of a portion of his properties to his only grandson a few years before his death is not on the face of it an unconscionable transaction. Moreover, we cannot lose sight of the fact that if Balaram was exercising undue influence over his father he did not go to the length of having the deed of gift in his own name. In this he was certainly acting very unwisely because it was not out of the range of possibility that Subhas after attaining majority might have nothing to do with his father."
13. It shall be apt to make reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afsar Shaikh and another v. Soleman Bibi and others AIR 1976 Supreme Court, 163, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"While it is true that 'undue influence', 'fraud', 'misrepresentation' are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases, they are in law distinct categories, and are in view of Order 6, Rule 4, read with ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 6 Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, required to be separately pleaded, with specificity, particularity and precision. A general allegation in the plaint, that the plaintiff was a simple old man of .
ninety who had reposed great confidence in the defendant, was much too insufficient to amount to an averment of undue influence of which the High Court could take notice, particularly when no issue was claimed and no contention was raised on that point at any stage in the trial court, or, in the first round, even before the first appellate court."
of
14. Yet again on the subject, reference to a judgment rendered by this Court in Upasna and others vs. Omi Devi, 2001 (2) Current Law Journal (H.P.) 278 is also essential as the law on the subject was rt lucidly dealt and it was held as under:
"............The allegation of fraud, coercion and undue influence could not be proved by the plaintiffs and as such both the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the gift deed was as a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence. The possession of the land in dispute was given to the defendant and the mutation of entry in the revenue record in her name was made by the Patwari in the presence of Beli Ram during his life time. The execution of the gift deed was the personal right of the donor and since Beli Ram had not assailed the gift made by him in favour of the defendant during his life time, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the donee had not rendered any service to the donor during his life time. The gift has been validly made by the donor in favour of the donee voluntarily and with his free will and accepted by the donee it cannot be said that the gift was induced by undue influence under Section 16 (2) & (3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and was as a result of fraud as defined under Section 1 of the Act. The ratio of the judgment in Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co., Ltd. Karnal & Ors., AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1279 strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in my view does not advance the case of the plaintiffs that the gift in question was as a result of undue influence under S. 16 (2) & (3) of the Contract Act, 1872. In Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib & Ors., AIR 1967 Supreme Court 878, it has been observed that law under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as to undue influence is the same in case of a gift inter vivos as in case of a contract. It has further been held that the court trying a case of undue ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 7 influence under Section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872 must consider two things to start with, namely, (1) are the relations between the donor and the donee such that the donee is in a position to dominate the will of the .
donor, and (2) has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donor? Upon the determination of these issues a third point emerges, which is that or the onus probandi. If the transaction appears to be unconscionable, then the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other. The of judgment further proceeded to observe that merely because the parties were nearly related to each other or merely because the donor was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise. In this view of the matter, as noticed hereinabove, the plaintiffs have rt miserably failed to establish that the gift deed was executed by donor in favour of the donee under undue influence or fraud......"
15. It is surprising that though the plaintiff had herself raised the plea of fraud and undue influence but strangely enough, learned trial Court did not even bother to frame an issue and straightway placed the onus upon the propounder of the Will to dispel the so called suspicious circumstances.
16. It is high time the Courts clearly understand the legal position and desist from placing the onus directly upon the propounder of the Will irrespective of the case set up by the opposite party. The correct legal position in matters of Will was laid down by the three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others AIR 1959 SC 443 and thereafter approved by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and others AIR 1964 SC 529 and thereafter reiterated in a number of cases including three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others (1977) 1 SCC 369, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 8 wherein the legal position was succinctly summed up in the following manner:
.
"10. "There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those decisions have been reviewed in an elaborate judgment of this Court in R. Venkatachala Iyengar v.B.N. Thirnmajamma & Others.(AIR 1959 SC
443). The Court, speaking through Gajendragadkar J., laid down in that of case the following propositions :
1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other rt document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the ease of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.
2. Since section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by section 63 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has .been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.
3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death o[ the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surround- ed by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he re- ceives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 9 mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will .
was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
rt 5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstance that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.
6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution' of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter."
17. Thus, it is absolutely clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that if a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the Will, such pleas have to be proved by him and only where the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free Will, then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 1018. Adverting to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that as regards the oral evidence, the plaintiff has examined another witness .
besides herself. She appeared as PW-1 and stated that she was married with Paras Ram about 40 years back, but no legal heir was born out from the wedlock. Her husband had expired on 19.5.2001 and therefore, she became the owner of the land in question. She performed his last rites of and prior to his death, he was not in a position to understand about his good and bad and had in fact at one time killed an ox. The Will was rt claimed to be false one. However, when it got down to cross-examination, she candidly admitted that right from the date of her birth, she had been residing at the house of her parents. Though, she denied the suggestion that divorce had taken place with Paras Ram. She also denied Paras Ram was being looked after by the family of his brother and further denied that the defendant was looking after Paras Ram and in lieu of his services had executed a Will in his favour.
19. PW-2 Kali Dass is the brother of Paras Ram, who claimed that Paras Ram was of unsound mind from his childhood and he had killed an ox. He further stated that Paras Ram was not able to understand about his good and bad and in his cross-examination, stated that it is known that Paras Ram had executed a Will in favour of Mast Ram as Mast Ram had been looking after him.
20. As against this evidence, Mast Ram, defendant, appeared as DW-1 and deposed that he was looking after Paras Ram and due to that reasons he had executed a Will in his favour on 14.6.2000 which was registered with the Sub Registrar, Sundernagar and mutation on this basis had also been attested. He further stated that the plaintiff was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 11 divorced 20-25 years ago and it was Hari Mohan son of brother of Paras Ram, who had performed his last rites. He further stated that Will was .
executed by Paras Ram in a sound disposing state of mind. In cross-
examination, the witness admitted that the Will was scribed in his presence and further stated that Chaman Lal's house is 5 KM away from Alsu and the house of witness was 26-27 kilometers away from village of Alsu. The witnesses signed the Will in his presence. However denied that the Will was executed by him by exercising undue influence over Paras rt Ram. He admitted that Paras Ram was alone and helpless and claimed that he looked after him.
21. DW-2 Onkar Singh is the Document Writer, who proved the Will Ex.DW-2/A, which is scribed by him on 14.6.2000 at the instance of Paras Ram. He stated that at the time of execution of the Will, Paras Ram was in sound disposing state of mind. After scribing the Will, he had read over and explained the contents of the Will to Paras Ram and the witnesses also and after admitting the contents to be correct by all of them, the same was signed by Paras Ram and thereafter the witnesses had put their signatures on it. The Will was thereafter taken to Tehsil office where the same was attested by the Tehsildar. The signature of Paras Ram was in red circle. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Paras Ram was not personally known to him. He stated that he was identified by Sh. D. K. Abrol, Advocate, but denied the suggestion that the Will had drafted at the instance of Sh. Abrol. He denied the suggestion that Paras Ram while executing the Will was not in sound disposing mind.
Lastly, he denied the suggestion that neither Paras Ram nor witnesses signed the Will in his presence.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 1222. DW-3 Chaman Lal deposed that Paras Ram got executed a Will in favour of defendant which was scribed by DW-2 at his instance. He .
alongwith Paras Ram son of Hiru Ram had witnessed the Will which had been read over by the scribe to Paras Ram, who after understanding the same as correct, put his signature on the Will and thereafter he alongwith another witnesses had put their signatures on the Will. He categorically of stated that Paras Ram had signed the Will in his presence and Ext.DW-2/A is the same Will. He further deposed that after signing the rt Will, he went to the Tehsil office where Tehsildar asked Paras Ram about the Will and it is only after satisfying him regarding the execution of the Will that the same had been registered. In cross-examination the witness stated that his house was 3 KM away from Alsu and he admitted that there were other houses at Alsu. He could not tell about the other relatives of Paras Ram and the details of other family members. He stated that the Will was prepared of about 4 bighas of land and denied the suggestion that the Executant Paras Ram was not in sound disposing mind or that he had not executed the Will.
23. DW-4 Hem Raj deposed that the Will Ex.DW-2/A was registered with Sub Registrar Office, Sundernagar at serial No. 133 dated 14.6.2000. DW-5 D.K.Abrol, Advocate, deposed that he had been practicing as an Advocate since 1967 and late Paras Ram was known to him. He stated that on 14.6.2000 Paras Ram had executed a Will in favour of Mast Ram and he had identified Paras Ram before Sub Registrar, Sundernagar. He proved the Will Ex.DW-2/A by identifying his signatures in circle red. He further stated that Sub Registrar read over and explained the contents of the Will to Paras Ram and had also made ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 13 an inquiry and only thereafter the Will had been registered. In cross-
examination, the witness stated that he put his signatures on the Will only .
as an identifier and denied the suggestion that the testator Paras Ram was not in sound disposing mind or that the Will had been prepared fraudulently.
This is the entire oral evidence led by the parties.
of
24. At this stage, it may be stated that the Will in question is a registered one and, therefore, there is a presumption to its being validly rt executed and onus of proof will be on the other party, who wants to set off the above presumption.
25. It is settled law that it is for the propounder of the Will to repel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and to prove the genuineness of the Will. Besides this, the propounder would also to satisfy the following points qua the due execution of the Will.
(i) the Will was signed by the testator;
(ii) at the relevant time, testator was in sound disposing
state of mind;
(iii) testator had understood the nature and effect of
depositions and had put his signature on the document of his own free volition and will.
26. In Ningawwa vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar AIR 1968, SC 956, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima-facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 1427. In Prem Singh vs. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353, it was held as under:
.
"27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima-facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, of respondent No.1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
28. It however, needs to be clarified that though it is always for rt the propounder of the Will to repel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and to prove its genuineness, the testamentary Court is a Court of conscience and not a Court of suspicion. It is not the law that, whenever a Will is sought to be proved in the Court, the Court should start with the presumption that the Will is not genuine or that it is fraudulent or that the person who chooses to establish the Will must remove all such suspicions even when they are unreal.
29. The object of the Court proceedings is not to render the testamentary document ineffective but to make it effective and render the terms of that Will operative. In doing so, the Court has to bear in mind and has to take note of the fact that the testator is not available before the Court to state as to whether the document in fact was his or her last Will or as to whether he or she had signed the same and whether the attestors had signed receiving an acknowledgment from him about the execution of the Will. It is for that reason that the Courts should be cautious while dealing with the evidence placed before it in relation to the execution and attestation of the Will as also the disposing state of mind of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 15 the testator. This need for caution cannot be exploited by unscrupulous caveators who choose to cull out imaginary suspicious with a view to .
prevent the legatees under the Will from claiming the benefit thereunder and to render the Will of the deceased wholly ineffective. In this context, the conduct of the persons who raise the alleged ground for suspicion is also to be looked at in order to judge as to how credible are the grounds of for suspicion as sought to be raised by such person.
30. Adverting to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that rt the defendant has been able to prove the Will by removing all the so called suspicious circumstances to the judicial conscious of this Court. It has come on record that the appellant, who claimed herself to be the wife of deceased Paras Ram had apparently got married to him when she was hardly 10 years and had never stayed in his house and had been residing at the house of her parents. That apart, what strikes the judicial conscious of this Court is the fact that if the plaintiff was really so called wife of Paras Ram, then would she have left him simply to die because while appearing as PW-1 she herself claims that Paras Ram was not in sound disposing mind, whereas PW-2 goes to the extent of stating that Paras Ram was of unsound mind.
31. The word 'wife' is not simply a word. In relationship of husband and wife, there are certain obligations and duties which both the spouse have to discharge and that would not only mean the obligation in matter of leading conjugal life but would include the obligation to take care of husband when he is ill, infirm or sick. Even if these obligations are not taken to be legal, these can definitely be considered as moral obligations.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 1632. Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned counsel for the plaintiff would vehemently argue that even if the plaintiff has failed to prove the so .
called fraud or undue influence, even then the onus to dispel the Will from all the aforesaid rests upon the propounder of the Will and would rely upon the following judgments: Indu Bala vs. Mahindra Chandra 1982 SC 133, Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam 2003 of AIR SC 761, Joseph Antony Lazarus vs. A.J. Francis (2006) 9 SCC 515, Sham Singh vs. Smt. Rano Devi, 2007 Latest HLJ, 352.. There rt cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments and this question has already been dealt with by me in the earlier part of the judgment.
33. It is next contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the testator has given no reasons in the Will to exclude the natural heir and would rely upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Bal Krishan and another vs. Shangri Devi, 2008 (2) Latest HLJ 799 and Ashok Bansal vs. Anju Goel, (2011) 3 SLC 52.
34. As regards the recording of reasons in the Will, once it has come on record that the appellant never resided with the deceased, then obviously Paras Ram never considered her to be his legally wedded wife, the same need not necessarily be disclosed in the Will and it was always open to the propounder of the Will to establish that she carried out her matrimonial obligation by taking care of Paras Ram, which unfortunately she neither alleged or proved.
The substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellant.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP 1735. In view of aforesaid detailed discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending .
application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) th November 16 , 2016. Judge.
(GR) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:33:43 :::HCHP