The aggrieved defendantappellant herein filed first appeal before the High Court.
Therefore the plaintiffrespondent cannot claim to be the sole owner of the suit property and the Suit itself is misconceived.
By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court companyfirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed his appeal.
In the year 1989, the respondent herein instituted a Suit, before the District Judge, Indore seeking ejectment of his brotherthe appellant herein from the suit property and also claiming mesne profits.
The defendantappellant herein companytested the Suit on the ground that he got half share in the disputed property as it originally belonged to his late maternal grandfather who was survived by only two daughters.
It is also on record that the said witness PW2 was number cross examined at the trial.
Taking into account the Will dated 9.9.1945, the trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the respondentplaintiff.
On the death of his grandfather his mother entered the succession and he has been staying with his mother in the suit property.
Subsequently, the respondentplaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that during the lifetime of his grandfather, late Goverdhanlal bequeathed the house property by executing a Will on 9th September, 1945 in favour of the plaintiff, and after the death of his grandfather in the year 1947, he has become sole owner of the Suit property.
It is number in dispute that the Will was executed by the testator in the year 1945 and it was drawn in the own handwriting of the executant himself.
239 of 1996 whereby the High Court while companyfirming the judgment of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant with companyts.
V. RAMANA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 29th November, 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in First Appeal No.
