The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving a Will rests on the propounders, and when a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounders must offer a cogent and convincing explanation to dispel the suspicions. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence and the burden of proof in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Second Appeal is filed against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court decreeing Plaintiff’s suit for declaration of ownership and possession of suit property. The appeal challenges Judgment and Decree dated 07 December 2022 passed by District Judge-III, Raigad at Alibaug in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23 April 2010 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibaug in Regular Civil Suit No. 170 of 2005.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, one Hiru Gopal Mhatre was the owner of various properties and after his demise, his two sons Krishna Hiru Mhatre and Narayan Hiru Mhatre inherited them. By way of Mutation Entry No.1779 effected on 01 May 1969, a partition was recorded between the two sons-Krishna and Narayan, in which the lands bearing Gat Nos. 654, 673, 680 and 721 came to the share of Narayan Mhatre. He purchased properties bearing Gat Nos. 653 and 678 as a tenant under provisions of Sections 32-G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Narayan also purchased land bearing Gat No. 829 by Sale deed dated 07 June 1943.

3. Out of the lands owned by Narayan, the land bearing Gat Nos. 653, 654, 673, 678, 680, 721 and 829 and House No. 129/A at Village Dhokawade, Talula Alibaug, District Raigad are ‘Suit Properties’.

4. Narayan’s family consisted of his wife Narmadabai and daughter Neerabai (Plaintiff). Narayan Mhatre died intestate on 06 March 1986 leaving behind his wife Narmadabai and daughter Neerabai. After Narayan’s death, Mutation Entry No. 2490 was recorded on 30 August 1986 under which, name of Narmadabai Narayan Mhatre was recorded in respect of all the suit properties, whereas the name of daughter Neerabai was recorded only in respect of two properties bearing old Survey Nos. 200A+2A/2 and 151A/3A. There is dispute among parties about the nature of Mutation Entry. While Plaintiff claims that the said mutation entry is effected only for the purpose of recording names of legal heirs of Narayan Mhatre, it is contention of Defendants that Mutation Entry No.2490 was certified with a view to give effect to the partition which Narayan effected during his lifetime. It is Defendants’ case that Narmadabai became sole owner of the suit properties by virtue of Mutation Entry No.2490.

5. On 10 April 1987, Narmadabai alleged executed a registered Will bequeathing the suit properties amongst Plaintiff-Neerabai and Defendants. Defendants are the grandchildren of Krishna Hiru Mhatre (Narayan’s brother). Narmadabai passed away on 28 July 1994 leaving behind her daughter-Neerabai (Plaintiff). On 18 April 1998 Mutation Entry No.452 was certified mutating sole name of Neerabai in revenue records of all properties of Narayan and Narmadabai. Shortly, thereafter on 5 May 1998, another Mutation Entry No. 453 was certified mutating the names of Defendants on the basis of Will dated 10 April 1987.

6. In the above factual background, Plaintiff addressed Notice through her Advocate to Defendants for deletion of Mutation Entry No.453 and for possession of suit properties. Defendants replied the Notice on 9 April 2002 and refused to act as per notice. Plaintiff-Neerabai therefore instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 170 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibaug seeking a declaration that Plaintiff is the sole owner of suit properties and seeking possession thereof from Defendants. She also sought relief of permanent injunction against Defendants not to obstruct her possession of suit properties in future. Defendant Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 filed Written Statement resisting the suit. Plaintiff examined herself as witness. Defendants examined Dattatray Mhatre (D1), Suresh Mhatre (D2), Bapu Jamdade, Anil Salavkar (Identifier of thumb impression of Narmadabai on Will) and Dinanath Malvi (attesting witness). After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit by declaring that Plainti