Out of the two attesting witnesses Dinkar Shripati Patil died on 24.5.1985.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondents companytended that since the order passed by the appellate companyrt was challenged only on the ground of maintainability of appeal, as such, the High Court was number required to look into the merits of the case.
20 of 1989, the appellant pleaded that Chandrabai, widow of Annappa Gurav was his companysin aunt, and she used to live with him.
PW 2 Dr. Herwade, who used to visit the deceased when she was ill before her death, was got examined on behalf of original applicant to companyroborate the fact that Chandrabai used to live with Vishwanath Dadu Gurav.
Appellants have further challenged order dated 7.1.2014 passed by the High Court whereby Review Petition Stamp No.
In the review petition it was pointed out by the writ petitioner present appellant that initially civil revision application No.
As against said fact there is specific plea that Chandrabai deceased was companysin aunt of the original applicant Vishwanath Dadu Gurav, and she used to live with him.
2576 of 2003 is dismissed.
It is also pleaded that a Will dated 11.9.1984 was executed in a sound companydition of mind by Chandrabai in the appellants favour in respect of properties mentioned in the application in presence of Dr. B.A. Herwade PW 2 , and two witnesses, namely, Mahadev Ramngiri Gosavi PW 4 and Dinkar Shripati Patil.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in view of law laid down in Manohar Bapurao Sapre v. Bhaurao Tukaramji Shirbhate and Another1, as the valuation of the property was only Rs.25,000/ as such the district companyrt had appellate jurisdiction.
124 of 1991.
Hence this appeal through special leave.
2576 of 2003 appears to have been filed on behalf of the original applicant on the ground that the appeal was number maintainable before the District Judge Additional District Judge Kolhapur .
33147 of 2012 appears to have been moved before the High Court seeking review of the impugned order dated 14.3.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.
Thereafter writ petition No.
An application was moved under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, by appellant Vishwanath Dadu Gurav who sought probate of Will dated 11.9.1984, said to have been executed by Chandrabai.
It is also number disputed that the respondents were number related to Chandrabai deceased .
1187 of 1997 was moved challenging the merits of the order passed by the appellate companyrt, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 2.12.2002, by the High Court as number maintainable in the light of the amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.
As such, the writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court challenging the maintainability of the appeal before the District Judge, and inadvertently the grounds on merits companyld number be mentioned.
Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 15.3.1991, passed on Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
124 of 1991 before the District Judge, Kolhapur, which was allowed on 17.10.1997, after hearing the parties, and the probate granted was set aside.
To what order, if any, the applicant is entitled?
Chandrabai and her husband, being issueless, were maintained by the appellant till their death.
However, the original applicant Vishwanath Dadu Gurav and original opponent Dattatray Ganapati Gurav have died and their legal representatives are prosecuting the matter.
Respondent Dattatray Ganapati Gurav opposed the probate application, and claimed that it was he who was looking after the deceased till her death.
Learned companynsel for the appellants argued that the High Court should have decided the writ petition on merits, and it erred in dismissing the writ petition only on the ground that the District Judge Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
The writ petition filed on behalf of the original applicant was dismissed by the High Court holding that there was numberinfirmity in the jurisdiction of the appellate companyrt.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
The trial companyrt, after hearing the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the applicant and directed issuance of probate in the name of Vishwanath Dadu Gurav in respect of Will dated 11.9.1984, executed by Chandrabai Annappa Gurav.
In said application, which was registered as Civil Application No.
Raising the grounds on merits against the order of the appellate companyrt, the order passed in the writ petition was sought to be reviewed.
33147 of 2012 in Writ Petition No.
Undisputedly, the Will Ex.
Though trial companyrt recorded finding in favour of the applicant, but the appellate companyrt reversed the same.
She was owner of certain properties in the Village.
The parties filed their documentary evidence in support of their cases, and also led oral evidence.
The deed was written by one Sayed.
38 in question was unregistered, but evidence was led to prove it on record by the attesting witness.
20 of 1989, original opponent Dattatray Ganapati Gurav filed Regular Civil Appeal No.
Consequently, a Review Petition No.
Therefore, the petition for probate was filed by the appellant.
Briefly stated, one Chandrabai, issueless widow, resident of Khochi, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur, died on 2.12.1984.
2576 of 2003.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. These appeals are directed against order dated 14.3.2012 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has dismissed the Writ Petition No.
2576 of 2003, affirming the order dated 17.10.1997, passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.
1637 dated 25.1.1985, but on the objection of respondent the entry was cancelled.
