JUDGMENT

Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. :—The appellant Vrindavanibai was the original defendant No. 1 in the suit filed by Vithalrao Ganpatrao Ganeshkar in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pune. The present respondents 1 to 5 are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff Vithalrao Ganpatrao Ganeshkar. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property which consists of a house bearing No. 674, Narayan Peth at Pune.

2. The suit/property originally belonged to one Rangubai Maruti Ganeshkar. She died on 28-2-1947 and her property was inherited by her daughter Babubai Sonba Pawar. Babubai was widowed in childhood. She had no children. She was in possession of this house till her death. She resided in one of the rooms in this house. The other rooms were rented out. In her lifetime she was managing this property, recovering rent and maintaining herself from this income. Babubais mother had a sister Gangubai. Gangubai had two daughters - Vrindavanibai and Indubai who are the appellant and respondent No. 2 before us. Babubai had good relations with the appellant Vrindavanibai and her husband. The appellant often visited Babubai and generally looked after her. Babubai died on 27-11-1963 on account of a heart attack. She was 50 years of age at the time of her death. prior to her death, she made a will dated 25-7-1963 under which she has given all her properties to the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant claims to be the owner of the property which is the subject matter of dispute in the present proceedings.

3. The original plaintiff Vithalrao Ganpatrao Ganeshkar was Rangubais husbands brothers son. From the evidence which is on record, it is apparent that the original plaintiff or his family had not kept in touch with Babubai during her lifetime. His son, who gave evidence at the trial, was not able to say anything about how Babubai maintained herself during her life. Under the Hindu Succession Act by which the parties are governed the original plaintiff would be the heir of Babubai had she died intestate.

4. After the death of Babubai the appellant and her husband were in possession and management of the suit property. The plaintiff Vithalrao tried to take possession of the room which had been occupied by Babubai, as well as her moveables. As a result of which, in December 1964 a police complaint was lodged and the room was sealed. In March 1965 Vithalrao applied to get his name entered in respect of this property in the City Survey Records. This was opposed by the appellant and her husband. Ultimately, the names of Vithalrao as well as the appellant and her sister - the 6th respondent, were entered in the City Survey Records.

5. In February 1967 the present suit was filed by Vithalrao for a declaration that he was the owner of the said property and for its possession. In the written statement which is filed by the appellant, she claimed title to the suit property by virtue of the will left by Babubai in her favour. The written statement was filed by her sometime in March 1968. Immediately, thereafter, she produced the original Will in court. The plaintiff did not raise any plea questioning either the genuineness or the validity of the Will.

6. The Trial Court framed an issue as to whether the appellant Vrindavanibai had become the owner of the property of Babubai by virtue of the Will dated 25-7-63 as alleged.At the trial, the appellant led the evidence of two attesting witnesses of the will who deposed that they were present at the time of execution of the Will at the invitation of Babubai. They had seen Babubai put her signature on the Will in their presence and each of them had put his signature on the Will as and attesting witness in the presence of Babulbai as well well as in the presence of each other. The appellant also examined herself. She deposed that in the Diwali of the year 1963 Babubai gave her the Will. That is how she came to know that Babubai had