JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---The sole question that requires consideration in this second appeal is : Whether the Will Exhibit-79 executed by Balu Mahadu on 17-5-76 is duly proved, valid and genuine?

2.The trial Court held that the plaintiff propounder of Will was not able to explain the suspicious circumstances satisfactorily surrounding the execution of the Will and, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on 30-8-1980. The first Appellate Court disagreed with the decision of the trial Court. The first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24-1-1985 held that the plaintiff has successfully dispelled the circumstances sought to be shown as suspicious by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the Will Exhibit-79 has been duly proved by the plaintiff propounder and the same is valid. The Appellate Court accordingly decreed plaintiff's suit.

3.The second appeal arises from the facts which may be summarised with brevity and these facts are :-

One Balu Mahadu Holmukhe vide registered sale deed purchased the land in question comprising of Gat No. 334 admeasuring 2 hectares and 45 acres and the well in Gat No. 3353 by registered sale deed from Jagjivan Madhavrao Inamdar. About two years prior to his death, Rajaram Shidu Ghadge, the plaintiff, was cultivating the said land on behalf of Balu Mahadu. Balu Mahadu was also staying with the plaintiff along with his wife. Balu Mahadu had one daughter Kalawati Dinkar Adsule, the defendant No. 1. Kalawati was married to Dinkar Bandu Adsule, defendant No. 2. Kalavati did not look after her father Balu Mahadu and rather she used to beat and harass him and her mother Yeshwade Balu Holmukhe, original defendant No. 4. Balu Mahadeo could not bear the beating and harassment of his daughter Kalawati and started residing with the plaintiff. Initially Balu Mahadu decided to sell the aforesaid land to the plaintiff and an agreement for sale was also executed. It appears that after the agreement of sale was executed by Balu in favour of plaintiff, the relations between the father and daughter deteriorated and the defendant No. 1 daughter even lodged a criminal complaint against her father Balu Mahadu on 17-5-1976. On that very day, Balu Mahadu executed the Will in favour of plaintiff Rajaram and bequeathed the aforesaid land to the plaintiff. The Will was written by scribe Ganesh R. Inamdar and attested by Thaksen Nivruti Kadam and Vasant Ghole and was duly registered by the Sub-Registrar, Waduj. In the Will, the testator Balu provided that the plaintiff Rajaram would look after his wife Yeshwada during her life time. Balu Mahadu died on 3-10-1976. At the time of his death, he was residing with plaintiff Rajaram and after his death, his wife Yeshwada continued to reside with the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued to cultivate the suit land in view of the Will executed by Balu Mahadu in his favour. Kalawati, Balu's daughter, her husband Dinkar and her father-in-law Pandu sought to obstruct the lawful enjoyment of the aforesaid lands by the plaintiff which gave rise to the filing of the suit by plaintiff Rajaram against them who were inpleaded as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Yeshwada, wife of Balu was also impleaded as defendant No. 4. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the claim of the plaintiff and as regards the Will dated 17-5-1976 plea was set up by them that the Will was not voluntarily executed by Balu and it was sham and bogus document. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 set up a plea that plaintiff was member of Maratha community and Balu belonged to Cobbler Community and, therefore there could not have been love and affection between them. Balu's wife Yeshwada supported the case of the plaintiff and after filing the written statement to that effect she died.

4.The plaintiff - propounder of the Will - examined the scribe Ganesh Raoji (Exhibit-77), Thaksen Nivruti Kadam (Exhibit-78) one of the attesting witnesses and himself (Exhibit-71) in proof of the Will dated 17-5-1996 (Exhibit-79). Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document