From the Judgment and Order dated 9 5 1972 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Kamla Kunwar who was appointed under Jaggo Bais will as an executrix filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court for probate of the will.
Jaggo Bai died on October 31, 1961.
On October 26, 1961 when the impugned will was executed by Jaggo Bai, a litigation was still pending between the mother and son, and just 3 or 4 days before the execution of the will, the eighty year old Jaggo Bai had to appear in the Court.
These instruments were on persuasion cancelled but Beni Chand did number mend his ways.
Beni Chand filed a caveat companytend ing that the will was a forgery and was prepared in companylu sion with one Dwijendra Nigarm, an advocate, while Jaggo Bai was lying in an unconscious state.
Later, she executed a document of a testamen tary nature disinheriting him.
The relations between Jaggo Bai and her son Beni Chand were strained beyond words.
That marriage created dissensions in the family, partly because Ved Kumari belonged to a different caste but more substan tially because the entry of yet another woman in the house hold was like a last straw.
His second wife Kamla Kunwar is Respondent 1.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On October 26, 1961 Jaggo Bai made a will disinheriting her son Beni Chand and the chil dren born of Ved Kumari, and bequeathing her extensive properties to the progeny born of Chameli Bai and to Kamla Kunwar and her progeny.
The testatrix Jaggo Bai had a muchmarried son called Beni Chand, the last of whose three marriages has given birth to this long litigation.
Beni Chand had numbermale issue from his two wives and therefore, in 1928, he gambled for a ion by marrying Ved Kumari.
2269 of 1972.
Beni Chands first wife, Chameli Bai, died leaving behind Re spondents 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as her heirs.
K. Mehta, for Respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. This appeal by certificate raises a question as regards the validity of a will executed by an eighty year old woman five days before her death.
1, 4, 5, 7 and 8.
Respondent 4 is her daughter and respondents 9 and 10 are her grand daughters.
125/70 .
11 12.
M. Tarkunde, Yatindra Singh, Deepal Gupta, Najahad Hussain, S.S. Khanduja, Urea Dutta and Miss Manik Tarkunde, for Respondents Nos.
P. Goyal, G.S. Chatterlee and Shree Pal Singh, for the Appellants Other than 2nd appellant .
M. Jain and S.K. Jain, for the Appellant No.
