Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Page 43)

19. But, interestingly, perusal of judgment dated 17.6.2004 passed by learned trial Court clearly suggests that .

it proceeded to decide the controversy at hand on the premise that onus, if any, to prove that Will Ex.DW-2/A is a valid document is upon the propounder of the Will i.e. defendant in the present case, completely ignoring the fact that at first instance plaintiff herself termed Will Ex.DW-2/A of as a fictitious/forged document procured by playing fraud.

Smt.Kaulan Devi. Moreover, plaintiff, who claimed herself to be a legal heir of deceased Kaulan Devi, never stepped into witness box, rather she gave her power of attorney to her husband, who appeared as PW-1. This Court was unable to find on record any explanation rendered by the plaintiff that what prevented her from entering the witness box to prove what she stated in the plaint. Perusal of statement made by PW-1, nowhere suggests that effort, if any, was ever made to prove on record that Will Ex.DW-2/A is a fictitious and forged document procured by the defendant by playing fraud .
Similarly, PW-1 nowhere stated that Kaulan Devi was not in a sound and disposing state of mind and was unable to append thumb impression on the alleged Will Ex.DW-2/A. Rather, he stated that Kaulan Devi remained ill for 10-15 days prior to his death and she was not even able to talk.
PW-1 nowhere stated that Will in question is a result of fraud and same is a forged document procured by the defendant by playing fraud in connivance with scribe and attesting witnesses as alleged in the plaint.

.

27. After perusing the entire evidence led on record by the plaintiff, this Court is unable to conclude that plaintiff was able to prove on record that Will Ex.DW-2/A is a forged and fictitious documents procured by the defendant by playing fraud. Since plaintiff had termed the Will to be of forged and fictitious documents, onus was upon her to prove on record that Will is forged and fictitious document rt procured fraudulently by the defendant by leading cogent and convincing evidence, but none of plaintiff witnesses, as has been discussed in detail, has either stated or has explained circumstances from which it could be inferred/gathered that Will Ex.DW-2/A is a result of fraud.