It was specifically pleaded that the share of the plaintiff was only 1/7 and, thereof, numberdecree for injunction companyld be passed against the defendants.
Ramabai, her father Madhav died on 6.6.1956 though according to the defendants he died sometime in year 1957.
The plaintiff appellant had become a widow in the lifetime of her parents and was residing with then.
1 to 5 and after his death, the same was inherited by their mother Smt.
The defendant number.
2003 Supp 2 SCR 583 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. MATHUR, J. 1.
Shri V.A. Mohta, learned senior companynsel for the appellant has submitted that after the death of Madhav which took place 6.6.1956, his widow Smt.
Learned companynsel has further submitted that the learned District Judge and also the High Court have taken a companypletely perverse view in discarding the Will solely on the ground that Smt.
The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which was dismissed by the High Court on 27.4.1995 and the decree passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the suit was affirmed.
Ramabai filed a suit for a declaration that she had become owner and occupant of the suit property as per the Will dated 5.4.1976 and for injunction for restraining the defendants and their agents, etc.
Yamunabai did number execute any Will in favour of the plaintiff on 5.4.1976 and the same was number binding upon the defendants.
Yamunabai had gone to the office of Sub Registrar, Palghar on 5.4.1976 for the purposes of registration of the will and she died 3 years and 9 months thereafter on 11.1.1980.
Ramabai become a widow at a very young age during the lifetime of her father.
Yamunabai, are residing at different places with their husband.
Yamunabai and she became the owner thereof.
Yamunabai executed a registered Will by which she bequeathed the entire property to the plaintiff.
The learned Civil Judge Jr. Divn. ,
Yamunabai died after companysiderable period on 11.1.1980, which itself showed that the same was executed when she was in proper and fit mental state and it had number been obtained by putting any undue influence.
The defendant number.
Since then, she was living with her parents and number at the place of her husband or in laws.
The other daughters of Smt.
It was for this reason that Smt.
He further passed a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute.
Palghar, decreed the suit on 4.2.1988 declaring that the plaintiff had become exclusive owner of the property in dispute on the basis of the Will dated 5.4.1976.
I to 5 companytested the suit on he ground, inter alia, that the property in dispute was ancestral property in he hands of Madhav and after his death Smt.
In such circumstances the execution of the Will by Smt.
The plaintiff appellant Smt.
However, the defendants got the names of all the heirs of Madhav mutated over the property in dispute and thereafter started interfering with the plaintiffs possession thereof.
Yamunabai was being looked after by the plaintiff Smt.
The suit was accordingly filed claiming a decree of declaration and injunction.
He has further submitted that the learned District Judge and the High Court had given good reasons for discarding the Will and the findings recorded by them being based upon proper appraisal of evidence, should number be interfered with by this Court Learned companynsel has also urged that Smt.
She was thus entirely dependent upon her own parents.
It has also been urged that the Will was executed and was registered on 5.4.1976 whilst Smt.
The suit was filed on the ground that the property in dispute, which is a house and agricultural land, belonged to Madhav who was father of the plaintiff and defendant number.
Yamunabai had become the exclusive owner of entire property.
At any rate at least from 1957 till her death, the mother Smt.
Yamunabai had excluded her other daughters and had given the entire property to the plaintiff.
Yamunabai was in any manner displeased or unhappy with her other daughters and as such she would number have companypletely disinherited them and this feature rendered the alleged execution of Will by her as highly suspicious and unnatural.
Yamunabai died on 11.1.1980 and thereafter the plaintiff came in possession over the property in dispute.
Shri A.S Bhasme, learned companynsel for the respondents has on the other hand, submitted that the mother had equal love and affection for all her children and there was numbermaterial on record to show that Smt.
Ramabai.
1 to 5 are the real sisters of the plaintiff and defendant number.
Ramabai was getting anything for her sustenance from the family members of her late husband.
It has been urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the companyduct of Smt.
6 to 8 are the children of a deceased sister of the plaintiff, namely, Smt.
Yamunabai did number become the exclusive owner thererof that the tenancy rights were inherited by all the heirs of Madhav by succession that the house was built by father of Madhav and it being ancestral in nature, the same was inherited by all the heirs that Madhav died in the year 1957 and, thereof, the succession would be governed by Hindu Succession Act and that Smt.
The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case.
Yamunabai was most natural and numberdoubt companyld be raised regarding the authenticity of the Will merely on the ground that numberprovision was made for the remaining daughters.
The defendants who are the other daughter of Smt.
According to Smt.
from interfering with her peaceful possession over the aforesaid property.
The defendants have led numberevidence to show that Smt.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree defendant number.
This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.1995 of High Court of Bombay by which the second appeal preferred by her was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1993 passed by the District Judge, Thane was affirmed.
Yamunabai had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and the same was got registered.
The appellant Smt.
1 to 5 preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Thane, who allowed the same by the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1993 and dismissed the suit.
