Case: Mohan Lal Vs. Nand Lal

2. In the year 1989, the respondent herein instituted a Suit, before the District Judge, Indore seeking ejectment of his brotherthe appellant herein from the suit property and also claiming mesne profits. Thet herein contested the Suit on the ground that he got half share in the disputed property as it originally belonged to his late maternal grandfather who was survived by only two daughters. On the death of his grandfather his mother entered the succession and he has been staying with his mother in the suit property. Therefore the plaintiffrespondent cannot claim to be the sole owner of the suit property and the Suit itself is misconceived. Subsequently, the respondentplaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that during the lifetime of his grandfather, late Goverdhanlal bequeathed the house property by executing a Will on 9th September, 1945 in favour of the plaintiff, and after the death of his grandfather in the year 1947, he has become sole owner of the Suit property. Taking into account the Will dated 9.9.1945, the trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of theappellant herein filed first appeal before the High Court. By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed his appeal. Hence, the appellant is before us in this appeal assailing the findings of the Courts below.

Reasoning: 7. It is not in dispute that the Will was executed by the testator in the year 1945 and it was drawn in the own handwriting of the executant himself. His handwriting was also duly proved byw of late Goverdhanlal, who used to correspond with him and thereby well acquainted with the handwriting of the testator. The argument that the Will lacks credibility because the idea of bringing it on record was an afterthought of the, that too after filing the written statement, cannot be sustained for the reason thatr Akolekar, Clerk of Indore Paraspar Sahkari Bank, clearly deposed, supported by documentary evidence, that the respondent secured a loan from the Bank by pledging the Will in the year 1964 and since then the Will was kept in the bank. It is also on record that the said witness (PW2) was notd at the trial. Going by the material on record, we do not find any suspicious circumstance surrounding the genuineness of the Will8. Merely taking the ground that the name of appellant has also been mutated in the municipal record and thereby he acquires right in the property, cannot be given effect to in the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the claim. The record shows that prior to the addition of his name in the municipal records, when the respondents name alone was there, thet had deposited the taxes in the name of, and there was no material on record to show how the name oft was added in the municipal records. In our opinion, the Courts below have thoroughly assessed the material evidences and accordingly came to the right conclusion. Once the will is believed to be a genuine piece of document, there is no need for us to delve into the matter further. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below by reasoned judgments.