Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : The question which arises for consideration 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. By this will, Ramdhan is alleged to have bequeathed almost his entire property consisting of 16 fields assessed to land revenue at Rs. 425/- per annum, five houses, a shop and movables consisting of 800 tolas of gold, 1,000 tolas of silver, Rs. 50,000/- cash and Rs. 15,000/- due from debtors as well as cattle, agricultural implements, utensils, etc., to the appellant, and practically excluded his widow, Sitabai and his three married daughters. The appellant is the grandson of one of the three predeceased uncles of Ramdhan, and the ground on which the widow and the daughters wree practically excluded by Ramdhan is said to be the strained relations which developed between Ramdhan and his wife during his last days.

2. Ramdhan died on October 31, 1948, and Sitabai, who was all along living with him, came into possession of Ramdhan s property. Admittedly the appellant did not try to disturb her possession. 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. Later on, however, she, in utter disregard of the appellant s interests, began to give away some portions of the properly to her daughters and strangers, even though she knew that the property had been bequeathed to him by Ramdhan, and that she was entitled to receive only a maintenance of Rs. 40/- per month under the will of Ramdhan. 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.

3. Upon these allegations, the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, in the District Court at Parbhani. Sitabai denied the execution of the alleged will by Ramdhan, and also denied the relationship claimed by the appellant with Ramdhan. According to her, after Ramdhan s death she was in exclusive possession of the property, that she is a helpless widow without a male issue, and that the appellant taking advantage of this fact has set up a false will and laid claim to Ramdhan s property. While admitting that the immovable property had been correctly set out in the plaint, she challenged the correctness of some of the items of the movable property. During the pendency of the suit, one Madanlal was joined as a party to it on the basis of his claim to be the adopted son of Ramdhan. He also challenged the genuineness of the will. According to him, he was adopted by Ramdhan in the month of Chait, Samvat, 1999 according to the prevailing custom in the State of Udaipur. Sitabai died during the pendency of the suit, and her daughters, Champabai, Rambhabai, and Rajubai as also Ram Parshad, one of Sitabai s sons-in-law, who was alleged to have obtained possession of the property after the death of Sitabai, were brought on record as the legal representatives of Sitabai.

4. 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. It also negatived Madanlal s claim of having been adopted by Ramdhan: On these findings, that Court decreed the appellant s suit. The legal representatives of Sitabai thereupon preferred an appeal before the High Court, which held that the will set up by the appellant is not genuine, and on that ground, dismissed his suit.

5. In support of the will, the appellant examined himself, the scribe, Venkat Rajaram and three of the attesting witnesses, Raja Kaniah Prasad, Rasheeduddin Ahmed and Wamanlal. The appellant also examined some witnesses in support of his contention that the property bequeathed to him under the will was entrusted by him to Sitabai after the death of Ramdhan. On the other hand, the respondents have led