JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-10-1983 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Misc. Application No. 469 of 1981. The said application was preferred by the respondent under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act applying for probate in respect of a Will dated 8-7-1968, executed by his father Ramu Parshuram Jagadale, who died on 17-8-1969, whereunder property bearing No. 404/B, Shivajinagar, Pune has been bequeathed in his favour. It is not in dispute that the said property was purchased by Ramu Parshuram Jagadale in the year 1938 by a registered sale deed. The said application was resisted by the appellant. Though other heirs of Ramu Parshuram Jagadale were impleaded in the said proceedings, no say was filed by the opponents Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7, whereas say was filed by opponents Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The appellant was opponent No. 1 in the said proceeding. In his reply, opposing the said application, the appellant inter alia, contended that the said Ramu Parshuram Jagadale had no authority to bequeath the subject property as the same was not of his absolute ownership. The appellant further contended that the Will has been obtained by the respondent fraudulently from the deceased Ramu Parshuram Jagadale who was bed-ridden and was incapable of understanding and taking just decisions. The appellant further alleged that the respondent has influenced in the making of the Will, being the elder son of deceased Ramu Jagadale. On the basis of pleadings filed before the lower Court, the trial Court framed the following issue:

"Does the applicant prove that the deceased Ramu Parshuram Jagadale executed the Will dated 8th July, 1968 of his free Will?"

The trial Court answered the said issue in favour of the respondent and allowed the application filed by him. The trial Court ordered issuance of probate with copy of the Will annexed in favour of respondent on payment of requisite Court fees stamp. This decision is challenged by way of present first appeal. It is relevant to note that though seven opponents were impleaded in the proceedings before the trial Court, in the present appeal, the appellant has joined only the applicant-respondent herein. It appears that the appellant had subsequently filed an application being Civil Application No. 9409 of 1999 for impleading the remaining opponents as party to the present appeal. However, the said application has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for the appellant mainly raised following four contentions:-

i) Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court was obliged to frame the issue that deceased Ramu Jagadale had no authority to make Will in respect of the subject property as he was not the absolute owner thereof. Having failed to do so, the judgment is vitiated inasmuch as the said issue goes to the root of the matter.

ii) That the Civil Judge at Pune had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings since the Will was executed at Kurundwad and that the deceased Ramu Jagadale was staying and eventually died at Kurundwad.

iii) The Will is not genuine and that there are circumstances which would lead to the conclusion that the same is a suspicious document.

iv) That the title of the document is 'Vyavasthapatrak' and as such the trial Court was in error in issuing Probate but at best could have issued only letters of administration in favour of the respondent.

2. Though the respondent has been served and is represented by his Advocate, none appeared when the matter was called out.

3. Having considered the abovesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and after going through the record of the case with the assistance of the Counsel for the appellant, following points would arise for my consideration:—

i) Whether the trial Court was obliged to frame issue regarding authority of the testator to make Will in respect of the subject prope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document