Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Kaur @ Jagir Kaur vs Bhag Singh And Ors. on 21 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR271
Author: Harjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The plaintiff-appellant, Inderjit Kaur instituted a suit for possession of the suit land on the allegations that her father was the owner in possession of the land and he had died on 26.12.1974 leaving her as his only survivor. It as also pleaded that her father, Gian Singh had executed a Will dated 18.12.1984, Exh.P-1 bequeathing his entire property to her and that the defendant-respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Bhag Singh and Nachhattar Singh, were the nephews of Gian Singh and they had got a mutation sanctioned in their favour on the basis of a Will, Exh.D-3 allegedly executed in their favour on 14.8.1967. The appellant accordingly claimed the estate of her father on the basis of the Will dated 18.12.1974 and also as being the sole heir of the deceased. Bhag Singh and Nachhattar Singh contested the suit and claimed that the aforesaid will propounded by the appellant was a forged one and that in any case, the deceased had left a registered Will dated 14.8.1967 in their favour on account of the love and affection that he had towards them, as the deceased had been residing with them. It was also pleaded that the Will dated 18.12.1974 was a forged and fabricated document.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Gian Singh executed a valid 'Will' dated 18.12.1974 in a sound and disposing mind in the favour of the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether Gian Singh deceased executed a valid 'Will' dated 14.8.1967 in favour of the defendants? OPD
3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the property in dispute as a daughter of Gian Singh deceased? OPP
4. Relief.
4. Under issue No. 1, it was found that the Will dated 18.12.1974, Exh.P-1 was a forged document and had been prepared by the appellant in connivance with the attesting witnesses and it had not been executed by Gian Singh in a sound and disposing mind. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and it was held that the Will Exh.D-3 dated 14.8.1967 was a valid one and that the same had been executed in favour of the nephews by the testator on account of the love and affection. The suit was accordingly dismissed. An appeal was thereafter taken to the first Appellate Court wherein it was primarily argued that the Will Exh.P-1 was liable to be accepted as being good as the appellant was the only surviving child of the testator and no reason had been spelt out as to why she had been dis-inherited. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of the attesting witnesses, namely, Gurnam Singh, PW-3 and Balwant Singh, PW-4 as also PW-2, the scribe. The appellate Court, however, found that the first 8/9 lines of the Will had been placed very close to each other whereas the remaining lines had wider spacing. It was also observed that the manner in which the thumb mark of the testator had been affixed, indicated that there was some suspicion with regard to this Will. The Court also found that both the attesting witnesses belonged to the village of the appellant and that the evidence of PW-4 Balwant Singh in particular was discrepant with respect to the time when the Will had been executed. It was also noticed by the lower Appellate Court that the testator had earlier executed a Will on 14.8.1967 and the same had been got registered but there was no reason given as to why the Will dated 18.12.1974, Exh.P-1 was left out from this procedure. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
5. Mr. Akshay Bhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued (as was argued before the Courts below) that there was not reason as to why the appellant. Inderjit Kaur, who was the only surviving heir of the deceased, had been left out of the Will and this fact by itself was sufficient to hold that the Will Exh.P-1 was a valid document. He has, in this connection, referred to H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimmajamma, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 443, in which the various tests for proving a will have been laid down. It has accordingly been urged that this appeal should succeed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length. It is true that the appellant being the sole heir of the deceased. Gian Singh, has been deprived of her due in a circumstance, which is relevant in determining the validity of the Will Exh.P-1 but though this circumstances is important, the other circumstances do indicate that this will was not a genuine/valid document. The Courts below have given good reason for their decision. It is the admitted position that PW-4 Balwant Singh, the attesting witness of the Will Exh.P-1, belonged to the village of the appellant. Moreover, it has been found, as a matter of fact, that the testator had died within eight days of executing this Will. This factor by itself makes the document a suspicious one. It is sure that the Will, Exh.D-3, which is a registered document, had been executed in favour of the nephews of the testator but keeping in view the fact that the parties are agriculturists the choice of the testator to keep the land within the family is not abnormal. Moreover, the Courts below have found that the second Will, Ex.D-3, had been validly executed and duly registered by the Sub-Registrar concerned. The findings of fact involved in this appeal do not warrant any interference. Dismissed.