Evidence Act. This fact has been gracefully admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Will was not proved, but he raises an alternative argument that if the Will was not proved, then principles of law of succession would have been applicable and all the successors would have been devolved with the share in the property as per the law of succession. However, learned First Appellate Court has dealt with this issue and has referred to the earlier litigation which had taken place between the parties and in which a judgment was passed on 27.03.1958 by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi which was produced as document no. 39-G and has aptly discussed that firstly even if it is presumed that Raj Narain Singh was the Karta of undivided property, then it is not clear that how the property could have been devolved on the plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 alone depriving the other successors of their share. It has also come on record that if the plea of plaintiff that Silwanta Singh died intestate is to be believed, then after taking a plea that Silwanta Singh had left a Will in their favour, it was no more open to the plaintiffs to raise a plea that the property was an undivided property and should have been bequeathed on the successors as per the rules of succession.
