Modi, J.—I his is a second appeal by the plaintiff Sheonath Singh in a suit for possession and cancellation of a will.

2. The material facts may be shortly stated as follows. It is common ground that Kan Singh deceased and the plaintiff Sheonath Singh are first cousins. On the 15th November, 1946, Kan Singh made the will Ex. 1 in favour of one Madanlal by which he bequeathed all his movable and immovable property to the said Madanlal. Sheonath Singh thereupon instituted the present suit during the life-time of Kan Singh on the 29th December, 1948, on the allegations that Kan Singh was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the former and that he had no right to make a will of the joint family property in the manner in which did. The suit was originally brought against Kan Singh only and was merely for cancellation of the will. Kan Singh subsequently died on the 28th September, 1949. Thereupon the plaintiff amended his suit, impleaded Madanlal as defendant in place of Kan Singh deceased and prayed for possession also. The Munsiff Dausa in whose court the suit had been filed dismissed it in the first instance by his judgment dated the 29th March. 1952. The Munsiff found against the plaintiff on all the contentions raised by him except that he held that the plaintiff was the nearest heir of the deceased Kan Singh, but he also held that that was of no materiality as in his view Kan Singh was a separated member and had a right to make a will with respect to his own property. The Munsiff further held that it was unnecessary for the defendant to obtain a probate of the will in order to succeed in his claim to the property of the said Kan Singh under that will. The plaintiff then went in appeal to the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. It appears to have been strenuously urged before the learned District Judge that the trial court should not have decided that the will could be given effect to even though it was unprobated, without framing an issue on that point, and that in any ease that court had fallen into error when it came to the conclusion that sec. 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act No. XXXIX of 1925) (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Act) was applicable to the present case and not sec. 213 of the Jaipur Succession Act, 1943 (Act No. XXIX of 1943) (hereinafter referred to as the Jaipur Act). It appears to have been conceded before the learned appellate Judge that if the Jaipur Act was held to be applicable to the facts of the case, then the plaintiff was bound to succeed as the defendant could not obtain any right under the will unless a probate thereof had been obtained by him in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In this view of the matter, the learned District Judge remanded the suit with a direction to the trial court to decide whether the present case was governed by sec. 213 of the Jaipur Act or by sec. 213 of the Indian Act, and, further, if the latter Act applied, whether the defendant could succeed in establishing his right under the will without obtaining a probate thereof. The Munsiff after remand held that the parties were governed by the Indian Act as it had come into force in this State before the present suit was decided and that under that section it was entirely unnecessary for the defendant to take out a probate of the will in suit. The Munsiff, therefore, again dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went in appeal to the District Judge, Jaipur District Judge,who also affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the 2nd December, 1953. The plaintiff has now come up in second appeal to this Court.

3. The only question for determination in this appeal is one of law, namely, whether the finding of the courts below to the effect that the parties were governed in this case by sec. 213 of the Indian Act and not by the corresponding section of the Jaipur Act is correct.

4. Sec. 213 of the Jaipur Act reads as follows:—

"Right as executor or legatee when established. (1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document