This second appeal challenges the confirmation of a Will executed by a testator. The High Court of Orissa dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose and the lower courts did not err in concluding the Will was validly executed based on acceptable evidence, prohibiting re-appreciation.
The appeal is 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AHO No.130 of 1994
Smt. Radharani Devi (since dead) …. Appellants represented by her L.Rs.
Mr. N. K. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
Smt. Kadambini Dei (since dead) …. Respondents represented by her L.Rs.
None
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
Order No.
ORDER 19.07.2021
Page 1 of 5
he was suffering from paralysis and was physically disabled, he had lost power of understanding and had executed the same without his free will. Incidentally, the testator’s two wives are sisters with the first wife of the testator i.e. Appellant No.1 herein being the elder and Respondent No.1 herein being the younger.
Page 2 of 5
sound disposing state of mind.” Further the learned Single Judge was satisfied that the Will had been duly attested by PWs 1, 2 and 3 and “there is nothing on record to suggest that the Will is not a genuine document.”
Page 3 of 5
P.W.4 had stated that the first wife had been earlier given properties by his father i.e. the testator and at that time no property had been given to the Respondents herein i.e. the second wife and her children. D.W.3 (i.e. the Appellants’ witness) in his cross-examination admitted that the testator had altogether 20 acres of land of which only 6 acres were included in the Will. There was no dispute that Appellants 2, 3 and 4 had been given about 19 acres of land in Ext. E. The learned Single Judge noted that the testator through his second wife had three daughters and five sons with the children being minors at the time of execution of the will. It was the circumstances that he left the properties in their favour in the will. The learned Single Judge has therefore concluded as under:
“xxx. Therefore, no fault can be found in the conduct of the testator in not making any provision for the appellants in Ext.1.”
Page 4 of 5
First Appellate Court, this Court is not persuaded that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The grounds raised are an invitation to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence , which has already been examined minutely at two levels. Merely because there is a possibility that another point of view may be possible on the same evidence is hardly a ground for interference with concurrent findings. Nothing has been shown to this Court from the record which would demonstrably show that the findings returned by both the trial Court and the learned Single Judge are factually or legally erroneous. In sum, no ground for interference by this Court has been made out in the second appeal.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Will was duly executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind.
Whether substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal requiring interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Radharani Devi (since dead)
Smt. Kadambini Dei (since dead)
B. P. Routray
Dr. S. Muralidhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
