The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the legality and validity of a Will Deed under the Indian Succession Act, specifically considering the provisions of Section 213 and Section 264. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of presenting sufficient evidence to support the claims made in a probate application.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. In this appeal, filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “the Act of 1925”), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 29th June, 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandrapur, whereby the probate application made by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the probate of the Will Deed of testator Rangubai dated 6th October, 2000 was issued in favour of respondent No. 1.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS:

In this judgment, the parties shall be referred by their nomenclature in the probate application. The appellant is non-applicant No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is the applicant and respondent No. 2 is the non-applicant No. 2. Deceased-Rangubai had two sons and two daughters. It is the case of the applicant that her father Rajanna, during his lifetime, made provision for the future life of his wife Rangubai by keeping the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- in a fixed deposit. It was kept in the joint names of Rangubai and non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 did not maintain Rangubai. She was driven out of the house by non-applicant No. 1 and, therefore, she was constrained to live with the applicant. Rangubai died on 16th January, 2003. It is the case of the applicant that during her lifetime, deceased-Rangubai on 6th October, 2000 executed a Will Deed in favour of the applicant and bequeathed both fixed deposits Rs. 80,000/- each to her. The Will Deed was executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The Will Deed was notarized by advocate Mr. M.V. Deo. It is stated that after the death of Rangubai, the applicant, being her beneficiary under the Will Deed, made the application for obtaining the probate of the said Will Deed in her favour. She stated that, as per the Will Deed after the death of Rangubai, she became entitled to the fixed deposits.

3. The non-applicant No. 1 contested the application. He has admitted his relationship with the applicant. However, he contended that the applicant was not entitled to get the amount of fixed deposit as per the Will Deed. He contended that his father, during his lifetime, sold the ancestral property, including agricultural land. The sale price of the land was deposited in the name of Rangubai during his lifetime, and after her death, it was given to him. The fixed deposits were kept in their joint names because non-applicant No. 1 was not given any share in the ancestral property. The non-applicant No. 1 further contended that the applicant took Rangubai to her house as a guest and got the false Will Deed prepared. The Will Deed, according to the non-applicant No. 1, was false and fabricated. The deceased-Rangubai had no right to execute the Will Deed in respect of two fixed deposit receipts. The applicant took advantage of her illiteracy and old age.

4. The parties adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions. The applicant examined herself as witness No. 1. The applicant examined three more witnesses in support of her contention. The non-applicant No. 1 examined himself as a sole witness. The learned Judge, on the basis of the available evidence, accepted the case of the applicant that the Will Deed executed by Rangubai in her favour was legal and valid. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant/non-applicant No. 1 is before this Court.

5. I have heard Mr. Pushkar Ghare, learned advocate holding for Mr. A.M. Ghare, learned advocate for the appellant/non-applicant No. 1 and Mr. S.M. Prasad, learned advocate for respondent No. 1/applicant. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. The following point falls for my determination:

Whether the applicant has proved that the Will Deed executed by Rangubai in her favour was legal and valid?

7. The learned advocate for non-applicant No. 1 submitted that the deceased-Rangubai had no right to execute the Will Deed in respect of two fixed deposit receipts, inasmuch as the fixed deposit receipts were in the joint names of Rangubai and non-applicant No. 1. The learned advocate