The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the validity of the Will in the context of suspicious circumstances and strained relations, along with the plaintiff's legal marriage to the deceased and her entitlement to the succession certificate.

J.C. Verma, J.-S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 245/2000 has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 passed by the District Judge. Jaipur city. Jaipur by Surendra Bhatia --defendant, in the suit filed by Smt. Poonam Bhatia by which decree he had allowed the application of the respondent plaintiff of grant of succession certificate; whereas Appeal No. (defect) 219/2000 is also directed against the same Judgment and decree dated 6-12-1999 by Smt. Swam Anand D/o Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia who was one of the defendant in the suit filed by Smt. Poonam.

2. The respondent-plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia w/o Late Sudershan Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia D/o Late Sudershan Bhatia RIo 7, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur had filed a suit for succession certificate against Surendra Bhatia, Smt. Swam Anand sons and daughters of Shri Chunni Lal Bhatia and Kumari Smita Bhatia wife of Shri K. B. Bhatia.

3. Suit was filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stating therein in the application that the deceased Sudershan Bhatia, husband of Smt. Poonam Bhatia and father of Kumari Smita Bhatia had property at Jaipur and Delhi. The deceased Sudershan Bhatia died on 2 1-4-1989 in Frankfurt, Germany and being sole heirs, they had claimed the succession certificate about the assets and liability of the deceased. The application was resisted by the defendants, now the appellant i.e. brother and sister of the deceased. The claim was being resisted on the basis of Will dated 17-4-1989 (Ex. A-i) purported to have been executed by Sudershan Bhatia, with further submissions that the relations between the deceased and Smt. Poonam Bhatia were strained and, therefore, Sudershan Bhatia did not want to give any property to Smt. Poonam Bhatia. The Will is said to have been executed by the deceased Sudershan Bhatia in the hospital of Frankfurt in Germany. The following issues were framed;

(1) Whether the deceased had executed any Will and because of the Will the applicants are not entitled to succession certificate; (2) whether the will was legal and effective; (3) whether the probate is necessary and whether ‘Will’ was to be attested according to Germany law or it is otherwise Illegal.

4. The trial Court had decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant and against the defendant-appellants and the remaining Issues against the defendants holding that Will was not validly executed and was written in the suspicious circumstance.

5. The appellant states that the order of the trial Court in not believing the ‘Will’ was erroneous. It is also submitted that the plaintiff Smt. Poonam Bhatia was, perhaps, not legally married to Sudershan Bhatia and reliance is placed for this purpose on Ex. 15 i.e. the passport of the plaintiff where her name has been entered as Smt, Poonam Kapur wife of Priyaveer Kapur of New Delhi and also the ticket for journey from Delhi to Frankfurt on 2-11-1987 when she had accompanied late Sudershan Bhatia. In the statement given in the Court, plaintiff had stated that the marriage had taken place on 25-12-1985; it is contended that in case the marriage had taken place on 25-12-1985, then in such situation, the plaintiff could not have identified herself to be Mrs. Poonam Kapur in the passport.

6. Thenext submission made by the counsel is that the averments in the application under Section 372 had not been proved. It is also submitted that even though Will was produced by the present appellant; the onus should have been put on the plaintiff to prove that she was entitled to succesion certificate. It is further submitted that the Will has been properly proved by the statement by DWs attesting witnesses with Mrs. Brigitti Rose Morsi Gorki and DW-3 Dr. Ure Faber and in such circumstances there was no reason for the trial Court for not believing the Will. It is stated that if the Will is believed, in that situation Late Sudershan Bhatia had expressely debarred the plaintif to inherit any property and he had b