It first examined the genuineness of the will.
Further plea of the first defendant was that Kisabai was number the wife of Dadu and Sugandha was number his daughter.
On the strength of that will the plaintiffs have brought the present suit for partition as well as other incidental reliefs.
Dadu and Tukaram were brothers.
It is said that on July 24, 1968, he had executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs bequeathing his interest in his family properties.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial companyrt the first defendant went up in appeal to the High Court of Bombay.
It came to the companyclusion that the will in question was a genuine will and thereafter partly relying on the recitals in the will and partly on other evidence came to the companyclusion that Kisabai was the wife of Dadu and Sugandha was his daughter.
Kisabai claims to be the wife of Dadu.
If the appeal did raise any triable issue then the High Court was number justified in summarily dismissing the appeal.
Dadu died at a ripe old age of over 80 years, on Oct. 26, 1968.
The first plaintiff Sugandha is the daughter of Kisabai.
The trial companyrt rejected the companytention of the first defendant.
The appellant Mahadev is the son of Tukaram.
The suit was resisted mainly by the first defendant on the ground that the will put forward is number a genuine will and the deceased Dadus mental companydition on the date he is said to have executed the will was such that he companyld number have been in a sound disposing state of mind.
S. Hegde, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Bombay summarily dismissing the appellants first appeal without assigning any reason.
The facts of the case are as follows.
