Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

He also admitted in cross-examination that adjacent to the house of

- 23 -

Roshan Lal, there is a house of Kewal Verma. He also admitted that Roshan Lal suffered paralysis on the left side. He also denied that .

NK. Mahajan and Baldev Raj used to meet Roshan Lal very oftenly.

21. Conjoint reading of the statements made by these witnesses (PW1 and P2) certainly suggests that Roshan Lal had suffered a brain stroke and was suffering from paralysis since 1994-95 of and since then, he was unable to live like a normal person. It also emerged from the statements of both the plaintiff witnesses that rt deceased Roshan Lal was under constant treatment, firstly at Sehgal Nursing home and thereafter at Dharamshala, where he used to reside with his wife as well as defendant No. 10. This Court while critically examining aforesaid statements also perused the cross-examination conducted on this witness very minutely to explore whether the defence was able to extract anything contrary, to what these witnesses stated in their examination-in-chief. Careful reading of the cross-examination of these witnesses suggests that though defence put several suggestions with regard to dispute, if any, in the family with respect to property but admittedly, defence has not been able to extract something from these defendants witnesses suggestive of the fact that at the time of death of Roshan

She stated that her father used to walk with the help of stick and he was mentally alert. In cross-examination, she stated that her father suffered paralysis in 1989 and thereafter, he remained under treatment for one and half years. She admitted that due to paralysis, her father had left job. She also admitted that house at Dharamshala is in the name of her mother and her sister used to visit sometimes. She admitted that she had written letter Ext.DA but she denied the suggestion that in the year, 1996, her father was bed ridden. She stated that she had gone to house after the death of her mother. She admitted that her father never disclosed her qua

25. True, it is that plaintiff has not lent on record any evidence in support of her claim that her father Roshan Lal was

- 31 -

suffering from mental illness at the time of execution of Will but careful reading of the statement made by the plaintiff witnesses as .

well as defendants witnesses clearly suggests that deceased Roshan Lal Puri had suffered mental stroke and was suffering from paralysis and he remained under treatment till his death. Since defendant witnesses admitted in their statements that Roshan Lal had suffered of paralysis and he was under treatment, no adverse inference, if any, could be drawn against the plaintiff as far as non production of rt medical record, if any, qua the alleged illness of the deceased Roshan lal is concerned. But at this stage, now question which remains to be decided/ascertained by this Court is "whether Will is free from suspicious circumstances or not" and same was executed by the Roshan Lal with the sound disposing mind. Since, the plaintiff has been able to prove on record that deceased Roshan Lal was mentally ill and had suffered paralysis and was under treatment till his death, onus if any, was heavily upon the defendants i.e. propounder of the Will to demonstrate that Will is free from suspicion and same was executed by the testator with his free own Will in sound disposing state of mind. But interestingly, in the instant case, even defendants have not made available on record any

circumstances. Both the courts below, while rejecting the plea of plaintiff that Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances concluded .

that plaintiff did not lead sufficient evidence on record to support her contention that her father was not in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Will. Courts below also observed that in the absence of specific medical record, version put forth on of behalf of the plaintiff could not be believed. However, both the courts below lost sight of the fact that factum qua the suffering from rt brain stroke and paralysis was duly admitted by defendants No. 6, 9 and 10 in their depositions made before the trial Court, where they unequivocally accepted that late Roshan Lal during his service had suffered mental stroke causing paralysis on the left side of the body.