Parmila Devi vs Sandhya Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3518 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               M.A. No. 140 of 2018
                                         -----

        Parmila Devi                                .... Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
          1. Sandhya Devi
          2. Manoj Dasondhi
          3. Rabin Dasondhi
          4. Punam Devi
          5. Dinanath Dasondhi                      .... Respondent(s)
                                   -----

        CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                    THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
                                 -----
        For the appellant(s):    Mr. Vishal Kr . Tiwary, Advocate.
                                 -----

5/21.09.2021:       Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. By filing this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 18.12.2017 passed by District Judge-II, Dhanbad, in Probate Case No. 09 of 2011 (Original Suit No. 09/2011) whereby, the learned District Judge-II, Dhanbad, has dismissed the Probate Case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court below should have verified the genuineness of the death certificate of the testator- Jagdish Dasondhi, before coming to the conclusion that the Will is not genuine. He further submits that it is the specific case of the appellant that the testator of the Will i.e. Jagdish Dasondhi died on 14.8.2000, but the trial court has wrongly considered that the date of death of the testator of the Will as 19.9.1996. He further submits that this aspect was not considered, thus this appeal needs to be allowed.

4. An application was filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate of the Will, as the Will was executed by one Jagdish Dasondhi and the appellant is the wife of Jagdish Dasondhi, who had executed the Will on 6.8.1997.

5. On notice, opposite parties appeared and they had taken specific plea that the testator -Jagdish Dasondhi died on 19.9.1996 and thus no Will has been executed by Jagdish Dasondhi on 6.8.1997, as claim by the claimant. Thus, the Will is not genuine.

6. The court below framed issue in respect of genuineness of the Will. Several documents were produced. Exhibit- A is the original death certificate of Jagdish Dasondhi. As per Ext.-A i.e. Original death certificate of Jagdish Dasondhi, the date of death is 19.9.1996 and thus the execution of Will by said Jagdish Dasondhi is not possible on 6.8.1997. The appellant claims that the date of death of testator-Jagdish Dasondhi is 14.8.2000, but she has not produce any document in respect of her claim and only on the oral submission, the claimant is trying to establish that the date of death of Jagdish Dasondhi is 14.8.2000. When there is original death certificate of Jagdish Dasondhi, which is a documentary evidence, showing his date of death as 19.9.1996, the oral evidence of the claimant giving a separate date of death cannot be considered. Thus the court below has rightly rejected the contention of the claimant that the date of death of the testator-Jagdish Dasondhi is 14.8.2000. Once the original death certificate of the deceased was brought on record as an exhibit, by the opposite parties, the burden of proof shifted upon the petitioner to controvert the said document. In this case the petitioner failed to discharge the onus.

7. As per the documentary evidence, the testator-Jagdish Dasondhi died on 19.9.1996, thus the trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the Will is not genuine and the claimant is not entitled to get probate of this Will. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2017 passed by District Judge-II, Dhanbad in Probate Case No. 9 of 2011 (Original Suit No. 09/2011).

8. Accordingly , this appeal is dismissed.

Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)