SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(Raj) 250

RANAWAT, DAVE
Gaindilal – Appellant
Versus
Bhuramal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P. Datta Advocate, for Appellant; S.N. Saxena Advocate, for Respondent

Dave, J.—The facts leading to this appeal are that one Jeewan Ram resident of Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur, died on the 29th August, 1947 leaving behind him two sons Bhuramal and Gaindilal. Gaindilal filed a suit against Bhuramal for the partition of property left behind by Jeewan Ram, in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. Thereafter on the 8th October, 1947 his elder brother Bhuramal filed an application for probate of a will alleged to have been executed by Jeewan Ram on the 16th August, 1947. Gaindilal entered a caveat and contested the application pleading ignorance of the said will and also on other grounds. The District Judge, however, allowed Bhuramals application and ordered probate of will of Jeewan Ram to be granted to him. It is against that order dated the 12th May, 1948 that Gaindilal has come to this Court.

2. It is contended by the appellants learned counsel that the alleged will purported to have been written by one Damodar Lal and is attested by four witnesses namely Gopi Nath, Shiv Narain, Mst. Goran and Ganga Ram, that the respondent had examined only Gopi Nath and Mst. Goran and refrained from producing the scribe and other two witnesses and that an adver









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top