On appeal by the appellants a Bench of the Jammu Kashmir High Court agreeing with the finding of the trial companyrt and accepting the testimony of P.W. 1, the advocate, and P.W. 2, the scribe of the will, found it to be genuine and executed by Mani Ram.
9 of 1966.
Holding that items 1 b and 2 of the plaint schedule properties were ancestral properties found that Mani Ram had numberauthority to dispose of these two items of properties by will.
The witness also stated that item 1 of the properties was companystructed by Mani Ram with his own income.
The respond ent also claimed that the three items of property were the separate properties of Purohit Mani Ram and that he was entitled to dispose of them under a will.
Therefore while decreeing the suit as regards item No.
At the time of the examination the witness stated that the physical and the mental companydition of the testator was good and he read out the will at the house of Janak Lal Sehgal and obtained the signatures of Mani Ram and that of P.W. 1, the advocate.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence of P.W. 1, the advocate, and P.W. 2, the scribe and held that the will was proved.
In the written statement the appellants averred that the properties be longed to the joint family of which the first appellant and his father, Purohit Mani Ram, were members and as the properties were joint family properties, they cannot be disposed of by will.
It was further alleged that the will was a forged one and is fictitious.
B. Pai, S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the appel lants.
P.W. 3, Lodra Mani, stated that Mani Ram was the A.D.C. of Maharaja Pratap Singh and was in service for Maharajas Puja, and that the Maharaja was giving lot of money to Purohit Mani Ram as present.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Bench of the Jammu Kashmir High Court the appel lants have preferred this appeal.
In the plaint it is alleged that the first appellant after the death of Purohit Mani Ram got rent deed executed in his favour and also recorded mutations in his name and dispossessed the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. No.
The first appellant is the son, the second appellant is the wife and the third appellant is the grand daughter of Purohit Mani Ram.
P. Malhotra, K.J. John and Shri Narain for the respond ent.
On behalf of the appellants a handwriting expert, Philip Hardless, and three witnesses were examined in addition to the first appellant.
The origi nal will was attached to the plaint.
1 a of the plaint schedule properties dismissed the claim as regards items 1 b .and 2.
Purohit Mani Ram died on 24th March, 1960, at Jammu and the respondent claimed to be the sole owner of the properties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir under Article 133 of the Constitu tion.
2330 of 1968 From the Judgment and Order dated the 12th March, 1968 of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in Civil First Appeal No.
He executed a will on 25th May, 1959, out of his own free will in favour of the respondent.
The respondent, Ishroo Devi, filed a suit for a decree for possession of all the three items of property mentioned in the plaint and for future mesne profits.
It was al leged that the three items of property mentioned in the plaint were the self acquired properties of one Purohit Mani Ram.
The appellate companyrt also company firmed the finding of the trial companyrt that the item l a of the property is self acquired property of Mani Ram while items l b and 2 are the ancestral properties.
While companyfirming the decree of the trial companyrt as regards item l a it allowed the respondents claim regarding items 1 b and 2 to the extent of one.half share holding that under section 27 of the Jammu Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, Mani Ram was entitled to dispose of his interest in the joint family property by will.
