“12. In this case while framing of issues in para No.7 of the impugned judgment two issues i.e. issue the issue of Will being the result of fraud, manipulation and misrepresentation played by the defendant No.1 in connivance with the witness have been framed on the plaintiff and the other issue has been given at Sr.No.3 pertains to the fact that Jonga Ram was not mentally fit to execute the Will dated 14.03.2006 as he was not in sound disposing state of mind. While giving the answer to issues in para No.9 of the judgment Ld. Court has given its finding in negative with regard to one issue only. Thus, both the issues i.e. Jonga Ram was not mentally fit to execute the Will and that the Will dated 14.03.2006 was result of fraud, misrepresentation have been answered in negative. However, if Jonga Ram have not been mentally fit if we considered, this issue to be in negative, then, the Will would not have been genuine, but the Will has been held to be genuine and not the result of fraud and misrepresentation and if the Will is genuine and not the result of misrepresentation then the plaintiff would not have obviously not entitled for declaration. While giving reasons for findings given on issue No.1 to 4 collectively by the ld. Court below in para No.27 of the impugned judgment has given issue wise finding with the reasons only with regard to one issue which he mentioned as issue No.3. This error on the part of Court below on account of which only one finding has been given with regard to the two issues and both the issues have been framed as issue No.3 has caused prejudice to the rights of the appellant. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment is perverse which has effected the rights of the appellant prejudicially. Accordingly, my findings on hence, point No.1 is decided in negative in favour of the appellant/defendant.”
