Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 35 -

26. PWs 1 and 2 have categorically stated in their statements that deceased Roshan Lal was not in disposing state of .

mind and he was totally bed ridden. Similarly, in the plaint filed by plaintiff, PW1 also contended that Will has been not scribed by the Roshan Lal, rather, same is a forged document procured falsely. At this stage, it may also be noticed that plaintiff filed suit bearing No. of 72 of 1998 for partition under Indian Partition Act by meets and bonds specifically averring therein that suit property is still joint and rt not partitioned by the parties and they are jointly enjoying and possessing the same. In the plaint, plaintiff stated that despite several requests made to the defendants, they have failed to get the joint property partitioned by meets and bonds and as such, cause of action, if any, arose to her on 20.4.1998 to file the present suit. Respondents No. 6, 9 and 10 by way of written statement refuted the claim of the plaintiff for partition by disclosing that Roshan Lal predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff as well as of defendants No. 9 and 10 executed a Will of his entire share in the suit property in favour of his daughter himself as back as on 6.8.1996, meaning thereby, factum with regard to execution of Will only, if any, by late Shri Roshan Lal in favour of defendant No. 10

- 39 -

above has gone one step ahead by providing that where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the .

propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. It is also been provided that suspicious circumstances may be as to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in of the light of relevant circumstances. In the present case, at the first instance, plaintiff filed suit for partition and after discovering the rt factum of execution of alleged Will in favour of defendant No. 10 from the written statement filed by defendants No. 6, 9 and 10, suitably disputed the same by filing replication as well as by amending plaintiff specifically alleging therein that Will is fake and forged document procured by manipulation by defendant No. 10.