According to him, he allowed Sitabai to remain in possession on his behalf, and that for some time she was managing the estate in a satisfactory way.
15,000/ due from debtors as well as cattle, agricultural implements, utensils, etc.,
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February of the former Bombay High Court in Appeal of 1957 from original decree.
By this will, Ramdhan is alleged to have bequeathed almost his entire property companysisting of 16 fields assessed to land revenue at Rs.
to the appellant, and practically excluded his widow.
Sitabai and his three married daughters.
legal representatives of Sitabai thereupon preferred an appeal before the High Court, which held that the will set up by the appellant is number genuine, and on that ground, dismissed his suit.
The trial Court held in favour of the appellant that he was related to Ramdhan, as alleged by him, and that the will executed by Ramdhan was genuine.
In support of the will, the appellant examined himself, the scribe, Venkat Rajaram and three of the attesting witnesses, Raja Kaniahprasad, Rasheeduddin Ahmed and Wamanlal.
Ramdhan died on October 31.
The appellant also examined some witnesses in support of his companytention that the property bequeathed to him under the will was entrusted by him to Sitabai after the death of Ramdhan.
Later on, however, she, in utter disregard of the appellants interests, began to give away some portions of the property to her daughters and strangers, even though she knew that the property had been bequeathed to him by Ramdhan.
758 1963.
It may be mentioned that Ramdhan was a resident of Peepalgaon in the district of Parbhani, and the entire property, movable as well as immovable, is at Peepalgaon itself.
The appellant is the grandson of one of the three predeceased uncles of Ramdhan, and the ground on which the widow and the daughters were practically excluded by Ramdhan is said to be the strained relations which developed between Ramdhan and his wife during his last days.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Admittedly, the appellant did number try to disturb her possession.
Girish Chandra and Sardar Bahadur, for respondents Nos.
and that she was entitled to receive only a maintenance of Rs.
B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O. C. Mathur, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. The question which arises for companysideration in this appeal by a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay is whether a will alleged to have been executed by one Ramdhan on May 23, 1947 is genuine or is a fabrication.
425/ per annum, five houses, a shop and movables companysisting of 800 tolas of gold, 1,000 tolas of silver, Rs.
50,0001/ cash and Rs.
On these findings, that Court decreed the appellants suit.
1948, and Sitabai, who was all along living with him, came into possession of Ramdhans property.
It also negatived Madanlals claim of having been adopted by Ramdhan.
February 17, 1964.
1, 2 to 2 iv , 3 and 4.
40/ per month under the will of Ramdhan.
