IMPORTANT POINT
Revocation of Will – It has to be shown that testator had made another Will or Codicil or by some writing declaring his intention to revoke Will.

JUDGMENT

I.A. No.594 of 2020 in M.A. No.644 of 2018 & I.A. No.1490 of 2020 in M.A. No.645 of 2018

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Kanisk Kumar Deo, learned counsel has submitted that I.A. No.594 of 2020 in M.A. No.644 of 2018 and I.A. No.1490 of 2020 in M.A. No.645 of 2018 have been filed for condonation of delay of 296 days in filing both these Miscellaneous Appeals, as such, the delay may be condoned.

2. Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 has no objection.

3. Considering the same, I.A. No.594 of 2020 in M.A. No.644 of 2018 and I.A. No.1490 of 2020 in M.A. No.645 of 2018 are allowed and the delay of 296 days in preferring these Miscellaneous Appeals is condoned.

M.A. No. 644 of 2018 and M.A. No. 645 of 2018

4. Heard, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant-M. Ram Kumar Murty in both these appeals assisted by Mr. Kanisk Kumar Deo, learned counsel and Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-M. Adi Narayan Murty in both these appeals.

5. M.A. No.644 of 2018 has been preferred by the appellant-M. Ram Kumar Murty against the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Probate Case No.22 of 2010, whereby the Probate application with respect to Will dated 06.05.2009, filed by the respondent No.1-M. Adi Narayan Murty, has been allowed.

6. M.A. No.645 of 2018 has also been preferred by the appellant-M. Ram Kumar Murty against the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed by learned District Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.1 of 2012, whereby the alleged Will dated 23.06.2009 executed in favour of M. Ram Kumar Murty has been dismissed on contest.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has submitted, that both impugned judgments passed by learned District Judge-V, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court below has admitted that there are two Wills one is of dated 06.05.2009 and another is of dated 23.06.2009, which is in favour of the appellant-M. Ram Kumar Murty, as such, the last Will dated 23.06.2009 can only be considered.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has further submitted, that revocation of Will dated 22.06.2009 has rightly been proved in compliance of provisions under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 but the learned Court below has wrongly considered the same and dismissed the application filed by the appellant vide Title Suit No.1 of 2012 and wrongly allowed the Probate Case No.22 of 2010 in favour of respondent no.1- M. Adi Narayan Murty, S/o Late M. Venkat Ramana Murty, R/o Q. No.12, Dhala Road, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town- Jamshedpur, Distt.- East Singhbhum. The respondent no.2- D. Vijay Laxmi, D/o Late M. Venkat Ramana Murty, R/o Padampur, Orissa refused to contest the case.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Das has thus submitted, that both the impugned orders may be set aside and the both the Miscellaneous Appeals may be allowed.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-M. Adi Narayan Murty, Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha has submitted, that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge-V, Jamshedpur in both the cases i.e. Probate Case No.22 of 2010 preferred by the respondent No.1 and Probate Case No.19 of 2011 converted into Title Suit No.1 of 2012 on contest preferred by the appellant, has been rightly appreciated and the learned Court below has come to a finding that Will dated 06.05.2009 is genuine one and revocation of Will dated 22.06.2009 is not in consonance with Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharpur Singh & Ors. Vs. Shamsher Singh reported in 2009 (3) SCC 687, corresponding to AIR 2009 SC 1766, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has described the following circumstances as suspicious cir