[2025:RJ-JP:43362] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 110/2004 Pappu S/o Shri Budha, r/o Village Hatheni, Tehsil and District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Kaila Devi w/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh, r/o Girraj Colony, Girraj Kenal, Station Road, Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Surendra Singh, aged about 16 years S/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh 3. Inderjeet Singh aged about 8 years S/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh both through their Mother Smt. Kaila Devi R/o Girraj Colony, Girraj Kenal, Station Road, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents 4. Harkhasoaam 5. Udai Singh s/o Shri Mahendra Singh, r/o Girraj Colony, Girraj Kenal, Station Road, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Performa Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shantanu Gupta on behalf of Mr. Harshit Nehra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manan Sharma on behalf of Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/10/2025 1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to be as "the Act") assailing the impugned order dated 08.10.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur, in Case No.186/2002, whereby the application filed by the applicants/respondents under Section 372 of the Act was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in allowing the application filed under [2025:RJ-JP:43362] (2 of 4) [CMA-110/2004] Section 372 of the Act. He further submits that the learned Court below failed to consider that the applicant/respondent herein is not the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Mahendra Singh. He also submits that the learned Court below committed an error in not appreciating the fact that the appellant holds a 'Will' executed in his favour. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants/respondents opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the respondents are heirs of the deceased Mahendra Singh, whereas the appellant is the nephew of the deceased. He further submits that the alleged 'Will', on which the appellant has placed reliance, is not valid in the eyes of law. He also submits that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the record. 5. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the entire dispute pertains to the movable properties left behind by Late Shri Mahendra Singh, namely gratuity, privilege leave encashment, GPF, four months’ pension, etc. The record further reveals that the name of applicant/respondent No. 1 - Smt. Kaila Devi, and children were entered in the service record of the deceased Mahendra Singh, and name of Smt. Kaila Devi was also recorded as his nominee on the basis of a document dated 16.03.1998. [2025:RJ-JP:43362] (3 of 4) [CMA-110/2004] 6. The entire claim of the appellant rests upon the alleged 'Will' of the deceased - Mahendra Singh dated 10.09.1999; however, admittedly, Prahlad Singh the attesting witnesses of the said 'Will' was not examined by the appellant and testimony of other witness was found unsatisfactory. Moreover, while deciding Issue No. 1, the learned Court below expressed serious doubt regarding the validity of the so-called 'Will' due to major discrepancies in the signatures of the deceased Mahendra Singh, thus, it is apparent from the record that the learned Court below has rightly decided Issue No.1 to 4 in favour of the applicants/respondents and against the appellant. 7. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that the learned Court below, after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, has rightly allowed the application under Section 372 of the Act in favour of the applicants/respondents, who are the wife and children of deceased - Mahendra Singh being heirs of the deceased. Therefore, argument of the learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 08.10.2003 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 384 of the Act, 1925. 9. Accordingly, the present Civil miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:43362] (4 of 4) [CMA-110/2004] 10. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/16