ORDER :- This is a petition under Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the probate of the alleged will of the petitioner's mother-in-law, Smt. Jaggo Bai, who died at Banda, on 31st of October, 1961. The petitioner's case is that Smt. Jaggoo Bai had duly executed her last will and testament on 26-10-1961 in triplicate at the same time and place. One of the alleged identically worded wills was deposited with the District Registrar on 28-10-1961, through a lawyer, Dwijendra Nigam. The second was said to have been deposited with Dwijendra Nigam, the lawyer who had drafted and attested the will. The third was alleged to have been found in the box of the deceased after her death. The applicant was to be, under the three identical wills, the executrix of the will and the administratrix of the property left by the testatrix.

2. A pedigree of the family is given in the petition. The petitioner, Smt. Kamla Kunwar, is shown there as the second wife of Beni Chand, the only son of Smt. Jaggo Bai. The first wife of Beni Chand, Smt. Chameli, died perhaps long ago. Her descendants are shown as a widowed daughter, Smt. Chandrakanta, who has two sons who are living, and a daughter, Smt. Chandrabhaga, who is dead but whose two sons are alive. The petitioner has impleaded, as opposite party No. 1, Ratan Lal, the only issue of Smt. Gopa Bai, one of the three daughters of Smt. Jaggo Bai. The other two daughters of Smt. Jaggo Bai had died issueless. The petitioner impleaded Beni Chand, her husband and only son of Smt. Jaggo Bai, as opposite party No. 2. The remaining eight opposite parties are descendants of Smt. Jaggo Bai through Beni Chand. The pedigree set up by the petitioner differs from that given by Beni Chand only in so far as it does not show Smt. Ved Kumari, the third wife of Beni Chand, through whom Beni Chand had five sons.

3. The will purports to deprive Beni Chand of all rights in the property except that of residence for his lifetime only in one house, on the grounds, that, he had squandered lakhs by indulging in immorality "(badchalni)"; that, he had neither resided with nor served the testatrix; that, he had filed civil and criminal cases against her; that, he would waste the property by giving it to his kept woman "(dashta") and her children; that, he would make his wedded wife (i.e. the petitioner) a beggar. The principal object of the attack in the will seemed to be Beni Chand's third wife, Smt. Ved Kumari (described as 'dashta'), and the five sons of Beni Chand through her who get nothing under the will. The petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 3 to 10 are the apparent real beneficiaries in the will. Ratanlal, opposite party No. 1, was ostensibly deprived by the will of any right to the properties involved on the ground that he is well off. But, according to Beni Chand, the only contestant, the will is designed to conceal the fact that Ratanlal is a beneficiary as his right to a house, which is said to be disputed by Beni Chand, is acknowledged in the will.

4. The case taken up by Beni Chand reveals a long history of litigation going back to suit No. 237 of 1886, Deo Kunwar v. Man Kunwar, which went up to the Privy Council (reported in (1895) ILR 17 All 1 (PC)), over the properties which had devolved on Smt. Jaggo Bai in 1890. Smt. Jaggo Bai had filed a Suit No. 481 of 1890 against her mother Smt. Deo Kunwar and her aunt Smt. Man Kunwar for a declaration of her interest as a life-estate holder. Beni Chand alleged, in his written-statement, that devolution of the deceased's property, originally consisting of several villages, including Bazar Kaithiganj, which is one of the properties covered by the above mentioned will, was governed, under the Crown Grants Act, 1895, by the terms of the grant. It is also alleged that, when Beni Chand married a lady of his own choice (called Ved Kumari) in 1928, his mother, Smt. Jaggo Bai, got annoyed and gifted all her properties in favour of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document