Delhi District Court
Ram Niwas vs . Pitamber Singh & Ors. on 17 May, 2019
Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 16544/16
CNR No. DLSW010021922016
In the matter of
Sh. Ram Niwas
S/o late Sh. Dedh Raj @ Desh Raj
R/o A12, Sainik Nagar,
Matiala, New Delhi. ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Pitamber Singh (now deceased)
Through legal heir
Sh. Deepak Prakash S/o late Amarjeet
R/o F148, Village Lado Sarai,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Sat Pal Rathi
S/o Sh. Sumunder Singh Rathi
R/o 17/30, Sainik Nagar,
near Sector 6, Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar,
Haryana.
3. Sh. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahabir Prasad Gupta
R/o D22 Rose Apartments,
Sector 14, Rohini,
New Delhi.
4. Sh. Ram Kumar (now deceased)
through legal heirs:
(i) Sh. Narender Kumar
(ii) Sh. Pramod Kumar
Page 1 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019
Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16
Both sons of late Ram Kumar and
Residents of B1/33, Mianwali Nagar,
Paschim Vihar,
Delhi110087.
5. Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma (now deceased)
through legal heir
(i) Sh. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma
R/o H. No. 164, Village Bakharwala
P.O. Mundka, Delhi110041.
6. Sh. Devi Ram Gupta (now deceased)
through legal heirs
(i) Smt. Maya Devi Gupta
Widow of late Sh. Devi Ram Gupta
(ii) Sh. Anil Gupta
S/o late Sh. Devi Ram Gupta
(iii) Sh. Vinod Gupta
S/o late Sh. Devi Ram Gupta
R/o 170, Kapil Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi110034.
7. Smt. Lakshmi Devi
W/o late Rameshwar
R/o B39, Sainik Nagar,
Village Matiala,
New Delhi110059.
8. Sh. Jai Kishan
S/o late Rameshwar
R/o B39, Sainik Nagar,
Village Matiala,
New Delhi110059.
9. Sh. Satish Kumar
S/o late Rameshwar
R/o B39, Sainik Nagar,
Village Matiala,
New Delhi110059.
10.Sh. Ram Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Lala Sita Ram
R/o H. No. 8, East Avenue Road,
Page 2 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019
Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16
Ginni Devi Marg, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi110026.
11. Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Aggarwal
R/o H. No. 8, East Avenue Road,
Ginni Devi Marg, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi110026.
12. Sh. Sushil Kumar
S/o Sh. Behari Lal
R/o D5/4, Mianwali Nagar,
New Delhi110087. ...Defendants
Date of Institution of suit : 27.05.1999
Date on which judgment was reserved : 10.05.2019
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 17.05.2019
: JUDGMENT :
1. Plaintiff's suit assailing seven sale deeds executed by
defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 as null and void,
inoperative, illegal, nonest, having no legal efficacy or consequence and
disputing (i) alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 of Smt. Misri Devi; (ii) order
dated 23.07.1996 of SDM/R.A. for mutation of inheritance of late Smt.
Misri Devi in favour of defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh and (iii)
subsequent mutations in favour of other defendants has been whittled
down to Issue No.1: "Whether late Smt. Misri Devi executed a valid
and legal Will dated 18.11.1971? (OPD1)" vide order dated 19.09.2007
of Hon'ble Single Judge of High Court of Delhi which was affirmed by the
Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated
Page 3 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019
Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16
29.02.2008 dismissing FAO (OS) No. 406/07 by holding that trial has to
take place only in respect of Issue No.1.
2. Defendants No.7 to 9 being LRs of late Rameshwar have
been impleaded vide order dated 29.08.2017 which order is under
challenge before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi whereas defendants No.10 to
12 were impleaded vide order dated 12.10.2017 and they have joined the
proceedings without seeking any right to contest the suit by filing written
statement and leading evidence.
3. Brief facts set out in the plaint are narrated below:
3.1 Plaintiff Sh. Ram Niwas has filed suit claiming himself as
absolute and exclusive owner and bhumidhar of half undivided share in
agricultural land measuring 272 bighas and 6 biswas and full owner of 3
bighas and 13 biswas of land, under his possession, in Matiala/Matola
Village save and except (i) 36 bighas and 19 biswas of land which has
been acquired and is the subject matter of Award No.164/8687 of Village
Matiala and (ii) colony called "Sainik Nagar", Najafgarh which is under the
process of regularization vide letter No.TP/DP/436 dated 30.01.84 as
mentioned in letter No. TP/DP/4065/85 dated 20.12.1985 of the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi.
3.2 It is averred that his father late Sh. Dedhraj @ Deshraj had
executed Will dated 13.02.1987 in favour of plaintiff which is duly admitted
by other brothers and nephews for asserting himself as sole, absolute and
exclusive owner of aforesaid agricultural land and genealogical tree of the
family has been described in para No.1 of the plaint which is reproduced
below for proper appreciation of plaintiff's case:
Page 4 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019
Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16
Ram Saran Sharma
(Occupancy tenant "Maurusi")
* * *
Sehaj Ram Rati Ram Dedhraj @
(died 1960 issueless) (Died 1940) Des Raj
Misri Devi (Wife) (died 1989)
(Died 1986 issueless) *
* *
Brother Pitamber Singh *
claiming through Will *
of Misri Devi *
*
- * * * * * Bhay Ram Jodha Rameshwar Ram Niwas Jai (Dead) (Dead) (Dead) (plaintiff) Bhagwan * * claiming under
- * Will of Dedhraj * * * dated 13.2.87) Tilak Krishan * Raj Kumar * * * * Jai Kishan Satish Kumar Lakshmi Devi (son) (son) (wife) 3.3 As averred in the plaint, late Sh. Ram Saran Sharma being occupancy tenant "maurusi" under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 was survived by three sons namely Sh. Sahaj Ram, Sh. Rati Ram and Sh. Dedh Raj who succeeded to the occupancy (maurusi) rights in the said land and became occupancy tenants after the death of their father. 3.4 Sh. Rati Ram died on 01.06.1940 and mutation of his share was illegally made in favour of his widow Smt. Misri Devi who was unnecessarily recorded as occupancy tenant in respect of 1/3rd share of the land by the Revenue Officer vide order dated 11.07.1941 and 23.08.1941 contrary to the statutory provision under Section 59 of the Page 5 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which lays down that right of occupancy shall devolve on the widow, if any, until she dies or remarries or abandons the land and widow of deceased tenant shall not transfer the right by sale, gift or mortgage or by sublease for a term exceeding one year. 3.5 It is further averred that mutations were procured/manipulated in violation of law which have no legal efficacy as Smt. Misri Devi had abandoned the land and was neither in possession nor cultivated the land having left her matrimonial home after last rites (tehravi) of late Rati Ram and shifted to village Lado Sarai to reside with her parents by severing all connections.
3.6 Sh. Sahaj Ram and Sh. Dedh Raj being two brothers of late Rati Ram continued in physical and cultivatory possession of the land who along with Smt. Misri Devi were declared bhumidhar of 1/3rd share each of the land on the basis of entries in the revenue records with the advent of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
3.7 Sh. Sahaj Ram also died issueless in or about 1960 and mutation of his share was effected in favour of Sh. Dedh Raj and Smt. Misri Devi in equal shares who were recorded as bhumidhars of 1/2 share each in the agricultural land.
3.8 It is averred that plaintiff's father Sh. Dedh Raj alone was entitled to succeed to the land/holding as per Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and mutations dated 24.12.1960 and 30.06.1971 in favour of Smt. Misri Devi were illegally effected at the instance of Village Pradhan as Smt. Misri Devi was not entitled to inherit the joint ancestral land of late Sahaj Ram and late Rati Ram and could only retain the Page 6 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16property for her maintenance till she died or remarried or abandoned the land without any right to transfer or mortgage the land or create sublease for a period exceeding one year as per Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
3.9 Plaintiff's father Sh. Dedh Raj wanted to dispose of a part of land and approached Smt. Misri Devi in or about the year 197172 as the purchaser insisted for sale deed executed by all persons whose names were entered in the revenue records. Smt. Misri Devi willingly executed sale deeds through her brother and General Attorney Sh. Jai Narain which kindled her greed with considerable increase in the price of land and thereafter filed suit for partition of agricultural land on 06.01.1972 at the instigation of her father and brothers.
3.10 The suit for partition of agricultural land and application under Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 filed on 05.07.1973 along with affidavit of Smt. Misri Devi for separation of her half share and partition of land by metes and bounds was dismissed on 25.09.1980 which order was not challenged and attained finality. 3.11 Plaintiff's father Sh. Dedh Raj also filed application under Section 11 (a) read with Section 79 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act bearing Case No.62/RA/75 challenging declaration of bhumidhari and mutation of half share of land in favour of Smt. Misri Devi which application was dismissed by the Revenue Assistant on 03.04.1981 and Appeal No.131/ADA/A/R/81 was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Delhi on 20.09.1983.
3.12 Second Appeal No.382/1983CA against the orders was also Page 7 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors. CS No. 16544/16
dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 22.11.1984 and Civil Writ Petition No.1070 of 1986 for setting aside aforesaid orders and directing the Revenue Assistant to declare Sh. Dedh Raj as sole and exclusive bhumidhar of agricultural land was filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 3.13 Plaintiff, in addition, has also stated about (i) suit for permanent injunction bearing Suit No.461/1981 and application for interim relief filed by Smt. Misri Devi which was dismissed by Sh. S.M. Gupta, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and Sh. R.C. Chopra, Ld. Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Delhi and (ii) order dated 28.05.1986 restraining Smt. Misri Devi from transferring 1/6th share in the alleged undivided share in the land passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohinder Narain in Civil Writ Petition No.1070/1986 which was adjourned sine die on 05.12.1988 with liberty to get it revived as and when Revenue Authorities would pass order upon alleged Will in favour of Sh. Pitamber Singh.
3.14 Defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh, nevertheless, executed seven sale deeds in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 on 25/26.07.1996 on the basis of mutation order dated 23.07.1996 passed by SDM/R.A. Delhi which were registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Mumbai as Document No.960/96 to 966/96 on 26.07.1996 and 08.08.1996 and Appeal No.45/96 dated 30.07.1996 was filed in the court of Additional Collector, Rampura, Delhi assailing order dated 23.07.1996 passed by SDM/R.A Sh. K. K. Dahiya.
3.15 It is averred that Sh. Dedh Raj, father of plaintiff, alone was entitled to succeed to the land/holding of his deceased brothers as per Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and mutation sanctioned by Page 8 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16Revenue Authorities in favour of Sh. Pitamber Singh on 23.07.1996 is illegal which has led to execution of seven sale deeds in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 within two days of passing of order by SDM/R.A which sale deeds executed in contravention of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are illegal, void ab initio, inoperative and without any consequence.
3.16 It is also averred that Revenue Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction most callously and without application of mind as mutation on the basis of Will could not be effected in respect of the portion of land which was acquired and defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh at the most could claim compensation before the Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act but could not sell the acquired land and illegal sale deeds in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 are subject matter of Award No.164/86 87 Village Matiala which is verified by the copy of report of taking over possession dated 09.10.1986.
3.17 Other proceedings before different forums mentioned in the plaint include (i) Civil Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction No.113/84; (ii) Civil Contempt Petition No.336/96 under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; (iii) Appeal No.14/96 challenging order dated 27.08.1996 passed in Mutation Case No.259/9697; (iv) Appeal No.15/96 challenging order dated 26.08.1996 passed in Mutation Case No.227/9697; (v) Appeal No.16/96 challenging order dated 26.08.1996 passed in Mutation Case No.224/9697; (vi) Appeal No.17/96 challenging order dated 26.08.1996 passed in Mutation Case No.226/96 97; (vii) Appeal No.18/96 challenging order dated 27.08.1996 passed in Page 9 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16Mutation Case No.260/9697; (viii) Appeal No.19/96 challenging order dated 26.08.1996 passed in Mutation Case No.225/9697 and (ix) Appeal No.20/96 challenging order dated 27.08.1996 passed in Mutation Case No.261/9697 which are not relevant for deciding Issue No.1. 3.18 Plaintiff Sh. Ram Niwas claiming himself as absolute and exclusive owner and bhumidhar on the basis of registered Will dated 13.02.1987 executed by his father has therefore filed suit by asserting that agricultural land devolved on his father Sh. Dedh Raj in the light of specific provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and Smt. Misri Devi who died on 22.12.1986 was entitled to the property only as life estate but had no right to execute any Will in respect of agricultural land in view of Sections 48 (2) and 51 (2) (a) (i) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 which provide that agricultural land in Delhi devolves upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar and alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 in favour of defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh being forged document has no sanctity and legality in the eyes of law.
4. Summons were issued and joint written statement of defendants No.1, 5 and LRs of defendants No.4 and 6 was filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 17.01.2001 opposing plaintiff's suit on the ground of estoppal as plaintiff's father Sh. Dedh Raj had admitted Smt. Misri Devi as owner of 1/2 share of the land and more than 100 sale deeds were executed by them in respect of large portion of joint bhumidhari land. 4.1 Plaintiff's suit was also contested on the ground of exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts to sanction mutation under Section 20 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and by referring to Section 185 of Delhi Page 10 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16Land Reforms Act, 1954 which bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. 4.2 Plaintiff's averments were disputed by defendants and LRs in corresponding para of reply on merit and plaintiff thereafter filed replication on 28.02.2001 reiterating his averments and disputing defendants' contentions raised in their written statement.
5. Defendants No.2 and 3 also filed their joint written statement in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 17.05.2001 asserting valid, genuine and legal sale deed for valuable consideration executed by defendant No.1 in their favour and contested plaintiff's suit by disputing cause of action; valuation of suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction of civil court in view of specific provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. 5.1 Plaintiff's averments were also disputed in corresponding para of reply on merit and plaintiff thereafter filed replication on 23.07.2001 reiterating his averments and disputing defendants' contentions raised in their written statement.
6. Matter, thereafter, continued to be listed for submissions upon miscellaneous applications and plaintiff's application for withdrawing proceedings pending before various Revenue Authorities which could be transferred and adjudicated along with the suit was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 03.01.2007.
7. Following issues were settled by Hon'ble Court on 12.03.2007 on the basis of pleadings:
1) Whether late Smt. Misri Devi executed a valid and legal Will dated 18.11.1971? (OPD1)
2) Whether the order dated 23.7.1996 is Case No. 704/1988 passed by Sh. K. K. Dahiya, SDM/R.A. is void, inoperative, ab initio and non est? (OPP) Page 11 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
3) Whether the sale deeds executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendants no. 2 to 6 on 25.7.1996 are null and void and illegal? (OPP)
4) Whether the mutations made by the Revenue Authority in favour of defendant no. 2, defendant 4(i) and (ii) , defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6 are liable to be declared illegal and null and void? (OPP)
5) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to determine the controversy raised in issues no. 2 to 4? (OPP)
6) Relief.
8. Issue No.5 was treated as preliminary issue which was decided on 19.09.2007 by holding that Issue No.2 to 4 have to be tried by Revenue Court in view of Section 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and trial has to take place only in respect of Issue No.1 which is related to prayer clauses (i), (v) and (vi) of the plaint.
9. Order dated 19.09.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of High Court of Delhi was assailed by plaintiff but confirmed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 29.02.2008.
10. Defendants upon being asked to lead evidence have examined Sh. Pitamber Singh as DW1 and Sh. Chitranjan, LDC, Sub RegistrarII, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi as DW2 who has produced the official record of registered Will dated 22.11.1971 of Smt. Misri Devi.
11. Official witness (DW2) was crossexamined and discharged on 27.11.2008 whereas crossexamination of DW1 Sh. Pitamber Singh was recorded on 27.11.2008 and 09.02.2009 and defendants' evidence was closed in the affirmative on the basis of statement of ld. counsels.
12. Plaintiff Sh. Ram Niwas thereafter examined himself as PW1 by tendering his affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence and his crossexamination Page 12 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16was recorded on 09.09.2009 and 28.01.2010.
13. Besides himself, he has also examined Sh. T. Lakra, Kanungo, Record Room (Revenue), SBI Building, Tis Hazari Courts as PW2; Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, LDC, Record Clerk (Sessions), Tis Hazari, Delhi (twice) as PW3 & PW4 and Sh. Om Prakash Chopra, office of Sub RegistrarII, Janak Puri, Delhi as PW5.
14. Defendants' application under Section 151 CPC bearing I.A. No.3424/2011 regarding number of witnesses sought to be examined by the plaintiff was allowed vide order dated 05.09.2011 passed by Ld. Joint Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and plaintiff was allowed to examine Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert for producing his report in respect of thumb impressions on the alleged Will dated 18.11.1971.
15. PW6 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert was thereafter examined by plaintiff who has proved his report dated 28.04.2009 as Ex. PW6/1. He was cross examined by defendants' counsel and plaintiff's evidence was closed on 20.02.2013.
16. Applications under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC for impleading LRs of defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh and LRs of defendant No.5 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal were allowed by Ld. Joint Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 30.09.2014 and O.A. No.42/15 was thereafter allowed by the Hon'ble Court for impleading Sh. Sunil Kumar as the only legal heir of defendant No.5 late Rameshwar Dayal.
17. Matter was thereafter transferred to District Courts, South West District, Dwarka vide order dated 04.02.2016 and defendants No.7 to Page 13 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/169 and defendants No.10 to 12 were impleaded by Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 29.08.2017 and 12.10.2017 respectively.
18. Advocate Sh. Pankaj Vivek and Sh. Somdutt Kaushik for plaintiff, Advocate Sh. B. K. Srivastava for defendants No.10, 11 and 12, Advocate Sh. Kuldeep Sehrawat for defendants No.7, 8 and 9 [LRs of Late Rameshwar whose impleadment is under challenge and their application for transposing as plaintiffs No.2 to 4 was dismissed on 17.09.2018] and Dr. J.C. Vashishth for defendant No.5 have addressed their submissions and filed written arguments along with caselaws in support of their respective contentions.
19. Plaintiff's counsels have argued against legality and validity of Will dated 18.11.1971 broadly upon following grounds: (1) Execution of alleged Will of Smt. Misri Devi has not been proved as per the requirement of law; (2) If proved, whether Smt. Misri Devi was competent to execute the Will and alleged Will in favour of Sh. Pitamber Singh was executed without force, duress and coercion; (3) Right of occupancy had devolved upon Smt. Misri Devi till she died or remarried or abandoned the land and she was not entitled to execute Will in view of specific provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and (4) Alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 is a forged document which was not executed by Smt. Misri Devi.
20. It is their case that Smt. Misri Devi being a Hindu widow of deceased coparcener was not entitled to any share in the agricultural land as per Hindu Woman's Right to Property Act, 1937 and it is further argued that right of occupancy had devolved upon Smt. Misri Devi (widow) as per Page 14 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16Section 59 (b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 in favour of late Sh. Pitamber Singh is illegal and nonest in view of prohibition under Section 48 (2) and Section 51 (2) (a) (i) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 read with Section 4 (5), 8, 39, 59 and 60 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Ld. counsels for plaintiff, in addition, have also urged that defendants have failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to prove the Will and dispel the suspicious circumstances by relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled "S. R. Srinivas & Ors. vs. S. Padmavathamma" (2010) (3) CCC 359 (S.C.) and "Bharpur Singh & Ors. vs. Shamsher Singh" (2009) 3 SCC 687.
21. Advocate Sh. B. K. Srivastava for defendants No.10 to 12, per contra, has forcefully argued that plaintiff cannot dispute title and competence of Smt. Misri Devi which is to be decided by Revenue Courts by referring to order dated 19.09.2007 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is argued by ld. counsel for defendants that this court cannot revisit to decide the devolution of interest of bhumidhari rights since once an order made in the course of proceeding becomes final it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceedings and principles of res judicata applies in subsequent stage of the same proceeding as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Y. B. Patil & Ors. vs. Y. L. Patil" AIR 1977 SC 392. Relevant extract of para No. 4 of the judgment is reproduced below:
"4. ......It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, Page 15 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings, once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding."
22. Ld. counsel for defendants No.10 to 12 has also referred to judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled "Jagdish Prasad vs. State"
FAO (OS) No. 355/2008 in support of his contention that execution of Will can be proved in the manner provided under Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in cases where attesting witness have expired. It is contended by defendants' counsel that valid execution of Will dated 18.11.1971 has been proved as per the requirement of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act as defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh has identified thumb impression of Smt. Misri Devi and handwriting and signature of his brother Sh. Hari Chand. Defendants' counsel, in addition, also submits that thumb impressions of Smt. Misri Devi has been confirmed by PW6 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert who has admitted thumb impressions of Smt. Misri Devi in his report Ex. PW6/1 and plaintiff having examined and referred to expert's report has impliedly admitted the Will of Smt. Misri Devi.
23. Para No.13 and 14 of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jagdish Prasad's case (supra) cited by defendants' counsel are reproduced below:
"13. The legislature was conscious of the fact that a situation may arise where both attesting witnesses have taken the train to the heaven before the testator died or before the beneficiary propounds the Will. The consciousness of the legislature can be found in Section Page 16 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under:
"69. Proof where no attesting witness found If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person."
14. Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while dealing with a situation where no attesting witness can be found, requires evidence to be led that the signatures on a document which law requires to be attested by one or more witnesses are that of the executant with further proof that there is attestation in his handwriting by one attesting witness."
24. So far as mutation of agricultural land in the revenue records and competence of Smt. Misri Devi to execute Will is concerned, it is apt to note that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that Issue No.2 to 4 w.r.t. (i) order dated 23.07.1996 passed by SDM/R.A. in case No. 708/1988; (ii) sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 and (iii) mutations made by Revenue Authority in favour of defendant No.2, defendant No.4 (i) and (ii), defendant No.5 and defendant No.6 have to be tried by the Revenue Court which order was affirmed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that Writ Petition No.1070/1986 for setting aside orders of Revenue Authority and directing the Revenue Assistant to declare Sh. Dedh Raj as sole and exclusive bhumidhar was dismissed on 20.04.2009 and Letters Patent Appeal No.409/2011 has been admitted by the Division Bench of Page 17 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 03.05.2011 by directing that no third party interest shall be created without the leave of the Court which order was made absolute on 24.01.2012 and the matter has been directed to be listed on regular board vide order dated 22.08.2016. It is, therefore, not necessary to venture into the dispute w.r.t. mutation of the land in the revenue records and competence of Smt. Misri Devi to execute Will dated 18.11.1978 which is assailed as forged document having no legal efficacy and consequence being contrary to Sections 4 (5), 8, 39, 59 and 60 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with Sections 48 (2) and 51 (2) (a) (i) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 in view of order dated 19.09.2007 of Hon'ble Single Judge which was upheld by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Court.
25. The ambit of present suit is therefore limited to Issue No. (1) "Whether Late Smt. Misri Devi executed a valid and legal Will dated 18.11.1971?(OPD1)".
26. Alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 of Smt. Misri Devi in favour of her brother Sh. Pitamber Singh which was registered in the office of Sub RegistrarII Delhi on 22.11.1971 is reproduced below in verbatim:
Will This deed of Will is made at Delhi on this 18 th day of November, 1971 by Shrimati Misri alias Misri Devi D/o Shri Lakshmi Narain, widow of Shri Rati Ram, aged about 55 years R/o Village Matiala now at Village Lado Sarai New Delhi WHEREAS life is but short and uncertain. God knows when it may come to an end. I, with my feewill, consent, without any force or compulsion make this Will.
Page 18 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
WHEREAS I am issueless without any male or female issue. I own considerable landed property in village Matiala Delhi State. There may not be any dispute regarding my property after my death hence I make this Will.
WHEREAS I am residing with my brother Pitamber Singh, who is looking after me and maintaining me in this old age. I am very pleased with his services and devotion towards me. I do hereby make Will, devise and bequeath that so far as I am alive, I am owner of all my property with all proprietary rights thereto; after my death, all my property moveable and immoveable, residential and agricultural land, Houses etc. will go and devolve to my dear brother Shri Pitamber Singh son of Shri Lakshmi Narain R/o vill. Lado Sarai New Delhi and no other heir or successor shall succeed me.
This is my Last Will and testament and I shall not revoke or cancel the same.
In witness whereof, this deed of Will is made at Delhi on this 18th day of Nov. 1971 in presence of witnesses, who in presence of each other and in my presence have signed the same.
Witnesses : (1) Pt. Hari Chand S/o Sh. Lakshmi Narain of Village Sarain New Delhi.
(2) [signature in Urdu] ..........
Misri alias Misri Devi Executant.
Page 19 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/1627. Defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh in para No.3 of his affidavit Ex.DW1/A has stated that Will was drafted by Document Writer Sh. Shiv Chander at Kashmiri Gate Court on the instruction of Smt. Misri Devi which was read over, translated in vernacular and explained to Smt. Misri Devi by the Document Writer and Smt. Misri Devi who was of sound disposing mind had put her thumb impression on the Will after fully understanding its contents. DW1 during his examinationinchief recorded on 27.11.2008 has referred to certified copy of Will as Ex. DW1/1 and identified thumb impressions of Smt. Misri Devi at points 'A', 'A1' and 'A2' and signature of witness Hari Chand at points 'B' and 'B1' on the basis of original Will produced along with judicial file of suit No. 687/86 titled "Misri Devi Vs. Dedh Raj" bearing Goshwara No.803 summoned from Record Room Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi.
28. DW1 in para No.5 of affidavit Ex. DW1/A has stated that Document Writer Sh. Shiv Chander and marginal witnesses Sh. Hari Chand, Sh. Darshan Singh and Sh. J.R. Bhatia have expired and he being well acquainted with the writing and signature of his elder brother Sh. Hari Chand can identify signatures of attesting witness on the front side and reverse side of the original Will. Defendant Sh. Pitamber Singh in para No.6 and 7 of his affidavit tendered in evidence has further deposed that Smt. Misri Devi being illiterate used to put her thumb impressions upon documents and she had executed General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1971 in favour of Sh. Jai Narain which was duly registered in the office of SubRegistrar Delhi on 28.05.1971 and thumb impressions of Smt. Misri Devi on the General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1971 was Page 20 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16admitted by plaintiff's father who had executed hundreds of sale deeds along with General Attorney of Smt. Misri Devi.
29. During his crossexamination, DW1 Sh. Pitamber Singh has deposed that alleged Will was prepared by Document Writer Sh. Shiv Chander at his instance which was read over and explained to Smt. Misrti Devi, Sh. Hari Chand, Sh. Darshan Singh and Sh. J.R. Bhatia. His attention was drawn to the earlier statement recorded on 28.03.1989 in Civil Suit No.113/1984 titled "Misri Devi Vs. Dedh Raj" which was admitted by defendant Sh. Pitamber Singh and certified copy of his statement obtained from judicial file of the earlier suit brought by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Record Clerk was taken on record as Ex. PW1/D1.
30. Statement of Sh. Pitamber Singh recorded on 28.03.1989 in the earlier suit being relevant is reproduced in verbatim:
"PW2 Statement of Shri Pitamber Singh S/o Shri Lakshmi Narain aged 58 years, Shopkeeper, R/o House No. 38, Lado Sarai, Delhi.
On SA Husband of Misri Devi died several years ago. He died issueless. Misri Devi executed a Will in my favour on 18.11.71 for all her moveable and immoveable property. I have brought the original Will which is Ex. PW1/1. Shri Shiv Charan Petition writer wrote this Will on the asking of Smt. Misri Devi. The petition writer has since died. Smt. Misri Devi affixed her thumb impression on the Will. The witnesses to the Will were Shri Hari Chand, Shri Darshan Singh, Shri J.R. Bhatia adv. I identify their signatures as they put the same in my presence. Darshan Singh signed the Will in Urdu. The Will was executed in the office of Sub Page 21 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. Misri Devi put the thumb impression in the presence of myself and the aforesaid witnesses. All the witnesses to the Will have died. Smt. Misri Devi used to reside with me. Smt. Misri Devi was of sound disposing mind when the Will was executed. She understanding the Will as correct signed the same.
Shri J.R. Bhatia signed the Will as an attesting Will in English in my presence. Shri J.R. Bhatia adv. signed on the Will as an attesting witness in the presence of the Sub Registrar. The petition writer did not mention on the Will as to whose thumb impression he is obtaining on the Will. I have seen the thumb impression on the Will and it does not disclose as to who has affixed it. I did not put my signatures on the Will.
Smt. Misri Devi was illiterate lady. It is correct that the petition writer did not mention in the body of the Will that the matter has been read over to the executant and after admitting the same as correct she is putting her thumb impression. It is correct that the executant of PW1/1 has not given the details of the property. It is wrong to suggest that that I obtained the thumb impression of some other lady on the alleged Will by impersonation. It is also incorrect to suggest that Smt. Misri Devi never executed a Will in my favour. It is correct that Shri Dedhraj defdt. is the brother in law (Jeth) of the Smt. Misri Devi and he is having a joint khewat in the land in dispute. It is incorrect to suggest that I am not the legal heir of Smt. Misri Devi. It is also incorrect that Shri Dedhraj is the only legal heir who is entitled to succeed to the right and interest in the land in suit of Smt. Misri Devi deceased. It is incorrect to suggest that the alleged Will is fabricated and a bogus document & I have Page 22 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
obtained the same by playing a fraud. It is also incorrect to suggest that Smt. Misri Devi was not in a sound disposing state of mind on the date of execution of the alleged Will.
RO & AC SJIC
28.3.89"
31. Legal position in the matter of proof of Wills has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para No. 18 to 21 of the judgment case titled "H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B. N. Thimmajamma & Ors." AIR 1959 SC 443:
"18. What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills? It is wellknown that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party pronouncing a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the Page 23 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies in a document in a court of law. Similarly, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind"
in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the Page 24 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.
19. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the Page 25 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.
20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature, in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate Page 26 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicious should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred, in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders Page 27 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word "conscience" in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive."
Page 28 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/1632. It is, therefore, relevant to note that defendant Sh. Pitamber Singh (DW1) having admitted his earlier statement recorded on 28.03.1989 in Civil Suit No. 113/1984 titled "Misri Devi vs. Dedh Raj" has reiterated selfserving statements in his examinationinchief and cross examination by deposing that Document Writer and marginal witnesses namely Sh. Hari Chand, Sh. Darshan Singh and Sh. J. R. Bhatia have expired without mentioning the date of death of his elder brother Sh. Hari Chand and without leading any evidence confirming death of other witnesses by summoning and examining their LRs or proving death certificate of the witnesses in support of para No.5 of affidavit Ex. DW1/1.
33. Defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh in his previous statement recorded on 28.03.1989 had deposed that witnesses Sh. Hari Chand, Sh. Darshan Singh and Sh. J. R. Bhatia had signed the Will in his presence and he could identify their signatures as all the witnesses to the Will have died. Certified copy of Will referred as Ex. DW1/1 however does not bear any attestation by Sh. J. R. Bhatia in English and attestation in Nastaliq script in Urdu does not bear the name of Sh. Darshan Singh.
34. Relevant portion of crossexamination of DW1 recorded on 09.02.2009 which raises suspicion regarding death of attesting witnesses is extracted herein below:
"Darshan Singh was a Sikh gentleman and was called by the advocate. Darshan Singh used to be a witness on the sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiff and Mr. Jai Narayan. I know Darshan Singh ever since when father of the plaintiff started selling land. I do not know where Darshan Singh was residing. He was an advocate by profession. I never met with Mr. Darshan Singh after execution of the Will. However, I know that Page 29 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
he has already been expired but I do not know when he expired. Summons were sent to him to appear as a witness and the same were returned with a report that he has expired. I do not remember in which case summons were sent to him. It is wrong to suggest that Mr. Darshan Singh had not signed the Will. Mr. Darshan Singh had signed in Urdu."
35. Similarly, no evidence has been led to prove thumb impressions of executant Smt. Misri Devi notwithstanding his earlier statement wherein DW1 had denied the suggestion that Smt. Misri Devi never executed any Will in his favour and he had obtained thumb impressions of some other lady on the alleged Will by impersonation. Admissions of DW1 Sh. Pitamber Singh in his previous statement that (i) Petition Writer did not mention on the Will as to whose thumb impression was obtained on the Will; (ii) Petition writer did not mention in the body of the Will that the matter had been read over to the executant before she had put her thumb impression and (iii) details of property were not given by the executant therefore assume significance which were not explained in his testimony.
36. Relevant portion of his earlier statement recorded on 28.03.1989 is reproduced below for reference:
"The petition writer did not mention on the Will as to whose thumb impression he is obtaining on the Will. I have seen the thumb impression on the Will and it does not disclose as to who has affixed it. I did not put my signatures on the Will.
Smt. Misri Devi was illiterate lady. It is correct that the petition writer did not mention in the body of the Will that the matter has been read over to the executant Page 30 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.CS No. 16544/16
and after admitting the same as correct she is putting her thumb impression. It is correct that the executant of PW1/1 has not given the details of the property. It is wrong to suggest that that I obtained the thumb impression of some other lady on the alleged Will by impersonation. It is also incorrect to suggest that Smt. Misri Devi never executed a Will in my favour."
37. It is, therefore, significant that defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh despite claiming that executant Smt. Misri Devi being illiterate lady used to put thumb impressions only and having deposed about General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1971 in favour of Sh. Jai Narain has neither produced original GPA or document/pleadings of the suits including suit for partition and separation of half share in agricultural land filed on 06.01.1972; suit for permanent injunction bearing Suit No.461/1981 and suit for permanent and mandatory injunction bearing Suit No.113/84 nor led any evidence to prove the thumb impressions of Smt. Misri Devi on alleged Will dated 18.11.1971.
38. Defendants, having failed to prove thumb impressions of Smt. Misri Devi on alleged Will, have desperately tried to cover up their own shortcoming by referring to expert's report proved as Ex. PW6/1 which has been relied upon by the plaintiff for disputing testimony of defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh who deposed that Smt. Misri Devi had put her right thumb impression (RTI) on the Will. Report of PW6 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert has a limited purpose for disputing testimony of DW1 as the expert having compared the enlarged photographs has concluded that flow of fault ridges/apex ridges of the thumb impression show that these are slanted downward in the left side as Page 31 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16such these thumb impressions belong to left hand.
39. It is also relevant to note that defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh has actively participated in the execution of alleged Will which he testified in his crossexamination recorded on 27.11.2018 by deposing that Will of Smt. Misri Devi was prepared at his instance. The fact that propounder has taken prominent part in the execution of the Will and received substantial benefit under it is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence.
40. It is well settled law that if a party writes or prepares a Will under which he takes a benefit, that is a circumstance that ought generally to excite the suspicion of the court and calls upon it to be vigilant and zealous in examining the witness in support of the instrument in favour of which it ought not to pronounce unless the suspicion is removed, and it is judicially satisfied that the paper propounded does express the true Will of the deceased.
41. Aforesaid principle was emphasized by the Privy Council in "Vellasawmy Servai vs. Sivaram Servai" (1929) LR 57 IA 96 wherein it was held that, where a Will is propounded by the chief beneficiary under it, who has taken a leading part in giving instructions for its preparation and in procurring its execution, probate should not be granted unless the evidence removes suspicion and clearly proves that the testator approved the Will. In "Sarat Kumar Bibi vs. Sakhi Chand" (1928) LR 56 IA 62, the Privy Council made it clear that "the principle which requires the propounder to remove suspicion from the mind of the Court is not confined Page 32 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16only to cases where the propounder takes part in the execution of the Will and receives benefit under it. There may be other suspicious circumstances attending on the execution of the Will and even in such circumstances it is the duty of the propounder to remove all clouds and satisfy the conscience of the court that the instrument propounded is the last Will of the testator."
42. In the present case, Smt. Misri Devi having left her matrimonial home after death of her husband late Rati Ram had been residing in her parental home since 1940 which is admitted by defendant No.1 in his crossexamination recorded on 09.02.2009 and General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.1971 in favour of elder brother Sh. Jai Narain and alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 in favour of defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh were executed before the series of litigations between parties starting from the suit for partition and separation of half share in the agricultural land filed on 06.01.1972.
Finding: Alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 could not be proved in the absence of evidence to prove execution of Will by proving thumb impressions of executant and by examining at least one attesting witness as per the mandatory requirement of Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Defendants, as such, have failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances attending the execution of alleged Will which is necessary to record finding that late Smt. Misri Devi had executed legal and valid Will dated 18.11.1971 in favour of defendant No.1 Sh. Pitamber Singh. Issue No.1 is therefore decided against defendants and impugned Will dated 18.11.1971 is declared as forged document having no legal efficacy and Page 33 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019 Ram Niwas vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors.
CS No. 16544/16consequence.
43. Relief: Plaintiff's suit is therefore decreed and alleged Will dated 18.11.1971 is declared as forged document having no legal efficacy and consequence, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
44. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
45. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed TARUN by TARUN
YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2019.05.25
10:51:41 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Tarun Yogesh)
On 17.05.2019 ADJ03/South West
Dwarka /New Delhi
Page 34 /34 DOD: 17.05.2019