Appeal against a decree upholding the revocation of a will. This court held no substantial question of law arose as the lower courts factually accepted revocation based on evidence undisputedly considered.
Second Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
SECOND APPEAL NO.676 OF 2004
Office Notes,Office
memorandum of Coram,
appearances,Court’sCourt’s or
orders or directionsJudge’s orders
& Registrar’s orders.
.............................................................
Mr.P.P.Chavan i/b Mr.V.M.Bhate for the
Appellant
CORAM: A.S.OKA, J.
DATED: AUGUST 7, 2006.
P.C.:
1. Heard Shri Chavan for the Appellant.
He submitted that the Appellant was not
permitted to examine handwriting expert to
give opinion about the thumb impression of
the deceased. He, therefore, submitted
that the impugned Judgments and decrees
are vitiated.
2. I have considered the submissions.
Apart from the opinion of handwriting
expert, the other material on record has
been considered by both the courts below.
After considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record the courts below have
recorded a concurrent finding of fact that
the Appellant-Plaintiff failed to prove
-2-
that the will dated 9th April 1985 still
survives as it is not revoked properly.
After appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the case
made out by the original Defendant Nos.1
and 4 as regards revocation of the will
dated 9th April 1985 has been accepted by
the courts below.
3. No substantial question of law arises.
Second Appeal is dismissed with no order
as to costs.
Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are vitiated because the appellant was not permitted to examine a handwriting expert regarding the thumb impression of the deceased.
Whether the will dated 9th April 1985 still survives as being not properly revoked.
Whether a substantial question of law arises on the second appeal.
Appellant
Original Defendant Nos. 1 and 4
A.S. OKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court