From the Judgment and Order dated 15 2 67 of the Delhi High Court in L.A.P. No.
Jog Maya was a resident of Mohalla Rang Mahal, Nahar Sadat Khan, Delhi and although she had an adopted son, namely, the respondent Pt.
The appellant Durga Prasad on the other hand was looking after the affairs of the lady and doing her work from time to time.
She retained the provision that she would manage the property and realise the rents till her life time after which the property was to be managed by seven persons numberinated by her under the will.
The appellant, therefore, filed an appeal to the High Court which was heard by Mr. Justice P. D. Sharma who reversed the decision of the District Judge and found that the will was a genuine document and had number been revoked.
In this will Smt.
Devi Charan there was numberlove lost between Smt.
The proceedings for probate were companytested by Devi Charan who denied the execution of the will on the ground that Smt.
The High Court has relied on a number of decisions in support of its view that from the fact that the will was number found on the death of the deceased Smt.
By this will she revoked the previous will of 1935 and dedicated a part of the house, some deposits in some banks, ornaments and other household goods for the benefit of the temple.
It was perhaps in lieu of the services rendered by the appellant that Smt.
The High Court while accepting the genuineness of the will has number suited the appellant only on the ground that as the will was number found on the death of the testatrix despite every attempt to search for it, a presumption would have to be drawn that the testatrix had revoked the will by destroying it before her death.
888D H, 889D, G, H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Soon thereafter the appellant who was the sole legatee and executor under the will filed a petition before the District Judge, Delhi for grant of letters of administration or probate.
Jogmaya was number of sound disposing mind when she is said to have executed the will but had been persuaded to do so by undue influence exercised by the appellant in executing the will.
55 of 1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 15 2 1967 reversing the decision of the single Judge and dismissing the application filed for grant of probate by the appellant of a will said to have been executed by Smt.
Put briefly the appellants case was that Smt.
It was also alleged by the respondent Devi Charan that the will was subsequently revoked and that is why it was number found in the house despite every possible search.
Sardar Bahadur Saharya and Vishnu Bahadur Saharya for Respondent No.
Jog Maya executed a will in his favour on 1st July, 1947.
The District Judge accepted the plea of the respondent and dismissed the application for probate by his order dated 3 5 1957.
T. Hrindra Nath, Gautam Goswami and B. B. Sinha for the Appellant.
Jog Maya died on 22 10 1955.
Jog Maya on the 1st July, 1947 and registered on 9th July, 1947.
146 D of 1963.
Even Prem Shankar one of the witnesses examined by the respondent clearly admitted that Devi Charan was number made a trustee by that trust deed because Smt.
