Delhi High Court
Satish Chander Sabharwal And Anr. vs State And Ors. on 14 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR2005DELHI125, 2004(77)DRJ675, AIR 2005 DELHI 125, (2004) 77 DRJ 675
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in PC No. 9/1999, whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 6th March, 2000 has dismissed the petition of the appellants herein holding that the Will Ex.PW3/1, dated 6th November, 1990 was a suspicious document.
2. The brief facts of the case as has been noted by the Additional District Judge are as under :
""The facts of the above detailed reference petition dated 5th December, 1998 are these, Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal had died on 13th November, 1990. The deceased executed a Will Ex.PW3/1, dated 6th November, 1990 registered on 8th November, 1990 in regard to his properties in favor of his wife Smt. Kailash Wanti, petitioner No.2 and his son, Satish Chander Sabharwal, petitioner No.1. As a matter of fact, he bequeathed life estate only, in favor of petitioner No.2 in respect with two quarters bearing No. 129 and 130, Vasdev Nagar, Andha Mughal, Partap Nagar, Delhi - 110007. He bequeathed the above said two quarters as well as one shop bearing No. 1A, Qutab Road, Delhi - 6 functioning under the name and style of M/s Lok Seva Stores Along with all the assets and liabilities over the above said properties in favor of his son, petitioner No.1. It is prayed that consequently, probate be issued in favor of the petitioners according to the Will.
2. Besides the above said two leavl heirs, the testator had left behind him, three more sons, namely, Krishan Lal Sabharwal, Ram Chander Sabharwal and Laxman Chander Sabharwal and three daughters, namely, Smt.Shyama Kumari Juneja, Smt.Veena Talwar and Smt.Neena Suri.
3. Shri Krishan Lal Sabharwal and Smt.Shyama Kumari Juneja filed no objection/reply to the above said petition.
4. However, Ram Chander Sabharwal, Laxman Chander Sabharwal, Smt. Veena Talwar and Smt.Neena Suri have contested the Will and filed different statements. They have voiced the following objections. Will dated 6th November, 1990 mentioned that testator had executed another Will dated 4th June, 1990. Both these Wills are forged, fabricated, concocted and/or in the alternative, obtained by the petitioners through their undue influence and fraud and are not the genuine Wills of the deceased. The deceased was not even medically fit and in sound disposing mind to have made the said alleged Wills. The Will in question makes patently false statements which were admittedly untrue to the knowledge of the deceased. The Will does not mention that the testator was in sound and disposing mind. The Will in question recites that the respondent no.4 had separated from the deceased in the year 1969 and had started transacting business separately. As a matter of fact and as per stand set up by the deceased in Civil Suit No. 741/90 titled as Shri Ram Chander Sabharwal Vs. Krishan Chand Sabharwal and others, the deceased had taken inconsistent stand that the deceased together with his four sons was carrying on business in partnership with effect from 1.4.82, which partnership took over the erstwhile propriety business of M/s Lok Seva Store. The Will further states that Laxman Chander Sabharwal had also separated from the testator in the year 1968. The Will states that the testator was the sole owner of the business under the name and style of M/s Lok Seva Store.This stand is contrary tot he stand set up in the above said suit. The Will depicts that it was executed by the testator on 6.11.90 in presence of two witnesses. However, the attesting witnesses have put the date under their signatures as 7.11.90. The Will purports to have been registered on 8.11.90 at the residence of the testator. The testator for the last 1/1.1/2 decades never resided at the premises No. 129-130, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Delhi and lived with one Ms.Kiran Dev at 56, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar. A suit had been filed by one M/s Fargo Mentles of Bombay against the testator wherein the deceased was shown as resident of 56, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar. Summon of the said case was received by the deceased at 56, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar. The deceased never had any joint-account with his wife but he had a joint-account with said Ms.Kiran Devi. The said accounts were, A/c No. 2955 Punjab & Sind Bank, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and A/c No. 9489 Union Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. In the books of account of the deceased, not a single penny was shown due or payable in the name of the petitioner No.2 but on the contrary there were different outstandings in the name of Ms.Kiran Devi. Petitioner No.2 was a deserted wife of the deceased and the deceased was living with Ms. Kiran Devi. The deceased had always held her to be his wife. A perusal of Will dated 4th June, 1990 indicates that the execution of the same had been certified by one Doctor Charanjit Singh on 7th June, 1990at about 2.00 p.m. However, the Will was executed on 4th June, 1990. The certificate given by the Doctor is apparently false and was made at the instance of the petitioner. Furthermore, the question of the distribution of partnership assets of M/s Lok Seva Store is pending trial and adjudication in Civil Suit No. 741/90 titled as Ram Chander Sabharwal Vs. Shri Krishan Lal Sabharwal, Delhi. The deceased had filed returns with the Sales Tax Authorities on behalf of the partnership firm. The Objections have a claim in the said premises. The premises No.129 together with the extending portion and also extended portion of the premises No. 130 are in possession of the Ram Chander Sabharwal, Objector. In the remaining portion of premises No. 130, Shri Krishan Lal is residing. Previously, a police report was lodged at the police station, Pratap Nagar on 28.1.90 wherein Ram Chander Sabharwal had mentioned that Ms.Kailash Wanti, Mr.Krishan Lal Sabharwal, Satish Chander Sabharwal and Mr.and Mrs. Nand Lal Juneja were attempting to dispossess Ram Chander Sabharwal as deceased's family member from quarter No. 129, Vasdev Nagar and had threatened to kill Ram Chander Sabharwal and his family members. Ram Chander Sabharwal has been paying electricity and water charges and the charges towards cesses, taxes, etc. to the D.D.A. Ram Chander Sabharwal had always looked after the deceased during his life time when he was hospitalised and also supplemented the efforts in getting the marriages of his sisters, arranged and fixed and in other family activities. He had spent Rs. 60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- from his own pocket for making additional constructions on the premises bearing No. 129-130, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Delhi. As per Hindu Succession Law, the seven children and his wife are entitled to join, simultaneous and equal succession and inheritance regarding deceased's estate.
5. Laxman Chander Sabharwal, Meena Talwar and Neena Suri have adopted the written statements filed by Ram Chander Sabharwal. However, Laxman Chander Sabharwal has explained that birth-certificate of his son, and electoral roll show the permanent address of this Objector as 129, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar. The deceased in the Will has wrongly stated that his son, Laxman Chander Sabharwal was unemployed and that is why he was kept as a salesman in his shop. Again, at the death of the deceased, all the sons performed last rites including "Pagri" ceremony. All of them as well as petitioner No.2 and said Ms.Kiran Devi accompanied them to perform the last rites/rituals at Haridwar.
6. In addition, Meena Talwar explained that she was doing business under the name and style of M/s G.R.Talwar & Sons of which she was the sle proprietor. The said business was being carried on at he address of M/s Lok Seva Store. Her husband G.R.Talwar was transacting business under the name and style of M/s A.V.Traders as sole proprietor at 129, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar. M/s G.R.Talwar & sons was maintaining account No.D 11328. The said account was introduced by the deceased during his life time. In the account opening firm, the address was given as 129, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar. The said firm carried on business activities in the above said premises at 1-A, Qutab Road, Delhi. Smt. Meena Talwar was also using telephone No.779760 installed at 1-A, Qutab Road, Delhi as her business telephone. M/s Lok Seva Store used to indicate the telephone No. 512651 which was telephone number issued by the telephone authorities in the name of Ms.Ram Chander Sabharwal and was installed at 129, Vasdev Nagar, Pratap Nagar.
7. Lastly, Smt. Neena Suri stated that she stayed at 129 Vasdev Nagar till 1980. She explained that the birth-certificate of her son, electoral roll mention her above said address. Laxman Chander Sabharwal had never executed relinquishment deed as indicated in the Will in question.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 20.1.95:-
1. Whether Late Shri Shadi Lal had validly executed will dated 6.11.90 while of sound disposing mind? OPP"
2. Relief."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Additional District Judge has gone wrong in holding that the will dated 6th November, 1990 was a sham document when PW-3, PW-4 and the doctor have categorically stated that the testator was of sound disposing mind and requirements of Section 63 Succession Act were complied with. Counsel has also taken me through the testimony of the witnesses and has laboured to show that the conflict if any between the testimonies is not of such a nature as to disbelieve witnesses as also the typographical error in recording of date on Ex.PW3/1 are not such as should render the document bad on account of suspicion.
4. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged that the manner in which the Will has been brought about smack off fraud, deliberate preparation of false documents and gross misconduct on the part of advocates who claim themselves to be the witness to the Will.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the judgment under challenge as also the material on record. While analysing the material on record, it appears to me that the Additional District Judge was absolutely right in returning the finding that the document is sham. To illustrate but a few instance that have led me to this conclusion are :
(I) The date of execution of will is different On the question of the date of execution of the document Ex.PW3/1 which according to petitioner is dated 6.11.1990, PW-3, Mr.Sanjeev Nasiar, deposes that :
"(i) Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal had come to me in connection with the preparation of his Will through his son-in-law, Shri Nand Lal Juneja.. at about 11 a.m. On 8.11.1990 and told me that his father-in-law, Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal was ill."
(ii)"The Sub-Registrar at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi gave time off between 4 to 5 p.m. saying that he will be present at the house of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal between 4 to 5 p.m. on 8.11.1990."
(iii)"Thereafter, myself and my partner went to the house of Shadi Lal Sabharwal Along with his son-in-law Shri Nand Lal Juneja"
(iv)"The Sub-Registrar had also reached the house of the Testator and the entire proceedings regarding the Will took place in his presence."
(v)"I had seen this person on 8.11.1990 at the time of execution of the Will"
(vi) "The formalities regarding registration of Will were completed by the Sub-Registrar at the residence of the Testator on 8.11.1990 itself."
In the cross examination, this witness states that :
(i)"Prior to 8.11.1990 Shri Nandlal did not contact me in connection with the Will Exhibit PW3/1"
(ii)"I met the deceased Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal once on 8.11.1990"
(iii) "I cannot say whether I visited or not at Vasdev Nagar prior to 8.11.1990"
(iv) ".....execution and registration of the Will were completed on 8.11.1990."
PW-4, Mr.Sushil Gupta, states in his examination-in-chief that :
(i)"........ but we had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar on the same day. I do not remember whether we applied on the same day or on the following day, but on the following day we again visited the office of the Sub-Registrar who agreed to accompany us in the evening hours to the house of the Testator. In the evening, when we visited the office of the Sub-Registrar, he accompanied us to the house of the Testator"
(ii)"The signatures of the Testator appear at point A2 and his thumb mark at above point Mark 'Y'. These were obtained by the Registrar on 8.11.1990. Thereafter I signed the Will at point Y2 and thereafter Shri Nasir signed the Will at point Z1"
In cross-examination, this witness states as under :
(i)"" On 8.11.1990, when I visited the house of the Testator with the Registrar ......."
(ii)" I cannot say whether it was before noon or in the afternoon that Shri Nand Lal approached me on 7.11.1990 for drafting of the Will"
(iii)" I had got the Will typed myself sitting next to the typist. I cannot say for certain whether it was 6.11.1990 or 7.11.1990 that Nand Lal Juneja had come to me for drafting of the Will:
(iv)" It is however my stand that Nand Lal had got the Will drafted from me on 7.11.90 and not on 6.11.90"
(v)" It is correct that in Will Exhibit PW3/1 the date mentioned in the second line is 6th day of November 1990, this however appears to be a typographical error"
(vi)" No Will was executed on 6.11.1990"
(vii)"On 7.11.1990 after completing our court work, Sanjeev Nasiar and I had gone Along with with Nand Lal to the Huse of the Testator. I cannot recollect the time when we had gone"
(viii)" On 7.11.1990 we had met with the Testator and his wife in the house of the Testator"
(ix)"The entire process of execution of Will took 10-15 minutes"
(x)"Application was submitted before the Sub-Registrar but I do not remember if the same was submitted on the same day or on the next day"
PW-5, Dr.K.K.Aggarwal, states in his examination-in-chief that :
(i)"Sometime in the month of December, 1990 I had visited the house of the Testator"
(ii)"Again said on a question being posed by Learned Counsel for Petitioner as to where the witness was on 7.11.1990 he does not remember the date or the month when he visited the house of the Testator"
PW-2, Mr.Shatrughan Poddar, deposes to the effect that "
(i)"The Will of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal son of Shri Wazir Chand is registered........dated 8.11.1990"
From the above it is clear that Ex.Pw3/1 is not beyond suspicion.
(II) Evidence led to show the identity of the testator PW-3 states that "Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal was identified and introduced to us by his son-in-law Shri Nand Lal Juneja who was already known to my partner Shri Sushil Gupta, Advocate."
PW-4 states that "After reaching the residence of the Testator, we enquired from him as to whether Shri Nand Lal Juneja was his son-in-law"
(III)Nature of instruction upon which the document prepared PW-3 states in his examination-in-chief that :
(i)"Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal had come to me in connection with the preparation of his Will through Shri Nand Lal Juneja"
(ii)"Shri Nand Lal Juneja asked me to prepare a Will of his father-in-law Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal which I did on his instructions"
(iii)"Again said at the time Shri Nand Lal Juneja came to me in connection with the Will of his father-in-law I was doing my work as an advocate in partnership with Shri Sushil Gupta"
(iv)"Prior to 8.11.1990 Shri Nand Lal Juneja did not contact me in connection with the Will Exhibit PW 3/1"
(v)"The Will of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal was in fact, prepared and got typed by my partner Shri Sushil Gupta, Advocate. I was not present either at that time when Shri Nand Lal Juneja, gave instructions to Shri Sushil Gupta, Advocate for preparing the Will of his father-in-law and I was also not present when Shri Sushil Gupta, Advocate had prepared his Will and got it typed"
PW-4, Mr.Sushil Gupta, in his examination-in-chief states that :
(i)"I had drafted the Will Exhibit PW3/1"
(ii)"The son-in-law of the Testator, namely, Shri Nand Lal Juneja had come to me on his instructions I had prepared the Will, Exhibit PW3/a and taken the Will to the house of the Testator who was ill"
(iii)"After reaching the residence of the Testator, we inquired from his as to whether Shri Nand Lal Juneja was his son-in-law and as to whether he had given instructions to his son-in=law to have the Will drafter"
In the cross-examination, this witness states that :
""......Shri Nand Lal approached me on 7.11.1990 for drafting of the Will. I do no remember if my partner Shri Sanjeev Nasiar was present when Nand Lal came to me for drafting of the Will. I had got the Will typed myself sitting next to the typist."
(IV) Execution and registeration of Will :
PW-1 states in his examination-in-chief that :
(i)"The Will was not executed in my presence"
In his cross-examination, this witness states that :
(i)"I cannot tell where the Will in question was executed by my father .... I cannot tell where my father was residing at the time of his death"
(ii)"I cannot identify the signatures at point encircled 'Y' on the back of first page of Will Mark 'X'"
(iii)"I cannot tell where my father was residing at the time of his death. The same is my answer regarding the residence before his death. I am graduate of Delhi University. Now I have recollected that my father had been residing at 129, Vasdev Nagar, Andha Mughal, Pratap Nagar, Delhi, at the time of his death and even prior thereto also"
PW3 in his examination-in-chief deposes that :
(i)"After the Will was got prepared my partner moved an application in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Kashmiri Gate for Registeration of the Will of Shadi Lal at his residence"
(ii)"The Sub-Registar at Kashmiri Gate Delhi gave time of between 4 to 5 p.m. saying that he will be present at the house of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal between 4 to 5 p.m. on 8.11.1990.
(iii)"Thereafter myself and my partner went to the house of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal Along with his son-in-law Shri Nand Lal Juneja"
(iv)"He admitted the contents of this Will to be correct as desired by him and after understanding and admitting the contents of his Will he put his thumb mark on all the 6 pages of his Will"
(v)"The Sub-Registrar had also reached the house of the Testator and the entire proceedings regarding the Will took place in his presence"
(vi)"After the Will was thumb marked by the Testator in my presence and in presence of my partner Shri Sushil Gupta and also in presence of the Sub-Registrar, the Will was first signed by my partner Shri Sushil Gupta, Advocate and thereafter by me as its attesting witnesses and we both had signed on his Will in presence of the Testator and in presence of each other"
(vii)"....... I had seen this person on 8.11.1990 at the time of execution of the Will. The formalities regarding registration of Will were completed by the Sub-Registrar at the residence of the Testator on 8.11.1990 itself"
In the cross-examination, this witness deposes as under :
(i)" I do no remember whether he had signed also in addition to affixing his thumb mark on his Will. The entire proceedings regarding execution and registration of the Will took place in one sitting at the house of the Testator in evening time"
(ii)"I had signed on Will Exhibit PW3/1 as one of its attesting witnesses for the first time before the Sub-Registrar and also in presence of the Testator. The testator had also thumb marked on all the pages of his Will Exhibit PW3/1 for the first time in presence of myself and the partner Shri Sushil Gupta, Advocate and the Sub-Registar"
(iii)"I am not able to recollect as to whether the Testator made any other marks of execution on the Will other than thumb impression. It is however correct that after putting his thumb impression only the attestation by two attesting witnesses and the signature of the sub-registrar, the proceedings regarding execution and registeration of the will closed."
(iv)" I do not know whether the Sub-Registrar had taken the original Will in his custody after the formalities of execution and registeration of the Will were completed on 8.11.1990"
(vi)" I do not remember whether the Testator had signed also on his Will in addition affixing his thumb mark...."
(vii)" I cannot say whether I visited or not at Vasudev Nagar prior to 8.11.1990"
PW-4 states in his examination-in-chief as under :
(i)"After reaching the residence of the Testator.....we read out to him the contents of the Will. After accepting the contents of the Will, the Testator put his thumb impression on the Will and also signed on the Will.
(ii)".......I do not remember whether we applied on the same day or on the following day, but on the following day we again visited the office of the Sub-Registrar who agreed to accompany us in the evening hours tot he house of the Testator. In the evening when we visited the office of the Sub-Registrar he accompanied us to the house of the Testator........the Sub-Registrar registered the Will at the house of the Testator and again asked the Testator to sign the same in his presence.......these were obtained by the Registrar on 8.11.1990"
In his cross-examination, this witness states as under :
(i)"I cannot recollect whether it was the ground floor, first floor or second floor which I visited. I do not remember the location of the house of the Testator nor the name of the locality"
(ii)"I cannot say for certain whether it was on 6.11.1990 or 7.11.1990 that Nand Lal Juneja had come to me for drafting of the Will. It is however, my stand that Nand Lal had got the Will drafted from me on 7.11.1990 and not on 6.11.1990........No Will was executed on 6.11.1990"
(iii)"On 7.11.1990 after completing out court work, Sanjeev Nasiar and I had gone along with Nand Lal to the house of the Testator. I cannot recollect the time when we had gone. On 7.11.1990 we had met the Testator and his wife in the house of the Testator"
(iv)"The Testator was found lying on his bed when I reached there. His wife had given him support in order to place him in such a position that he could sign the will......The entire process of execution of the Will took 10 to 15 minutes. I cannot say if the Will was taken by Nand Lal Juneja or kept by the Testator and in fact I cannot say what happened to the Will after its execution. Application was submitted before the Sub-Registrar but I do not remember if the same was submitted on the same day or on the next day"
(v)"Apart from Shri Nand Lal, Sanjeev Nassiar and myself only the registrar had gone to the house of the Testator Sanjeev Nassiar and I had together presented the document for registration to the Sub-registrar"
(vi)"Both Sanjeev Nasiar and I were together at all relevant times relating to the execution and registration of this document"
PW-5 in his cross-examination states as under:
"Then I went with Iqbal Singh on a scooter to the residence of Shri Shadi Lal. I do not recollect that most probably it was a two-storied house"
PW-2 in his cross-examination states as under :
(i)"I do not know whether the aforesaid Will was registered in our office or at the residence"
(ii)"It is correct that when an application is made by a party for registering his Will at his residence the application has to be accompanied by a medical certificate"
(iii)"I have no personal knowledge about the registration of the aforesaid Will. It is correct to suggest that the aforesaid Will was not presented for registration in my presence. I do not know whether the aforesaid Will was registered in our office or at the residence"
(V) Factum of registration of the Will PW-3 states as under :
(i)"Thereafter myself and my partner went to the house of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal Along with his son-in-law Shri Nand Lal Juneja. On reaching the house of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal, we found Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal lying on a cot and an old lady was also present in the house"
(ii)"The Sub-Registrar had also reached the house of the Testator and the entire proceedings regarding the Will took place in his presence"
PW-4 deposes in his cross examination that :
"On 8.11.1990 when I visited the house of the Testator with the Registrar, one lady was present in the house who gave herself to be the wife of the Testator"
PW-5 in his cross-examination deposed to the effect that :
"There was a lady there whose name I do not know who stated that she was the wife of Shadi Lal and two more persons were also there"
(VI) Condition of the Testator :
PW-1 in his examination-in-chief states as under :
(i)"My father was hale and hearty. On the date he executed his Will mark 'X'"
In the cross-examination, this witness states as under:
(i)"My father was highly diabetic and was also suffering from hypertension"
(ii)"It is correct that mu father was suffering form paralysis prior to his death. He had suffered paralytic attack one/one and half month before his death"
PW-3 in his examination-in-chief states as under :
(i)"......at about 11 a.m. on 8.11.1990 and told me that his father-in-law Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal was ill"
(ii)"On reaching the house of Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal we found Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal lying on a cot and an old lady was also present in the house"
(iii)"The Testator was possessed of sound disposing mind at the time of execution of his Will"
In cross-examination, this witness states as under :
(i)"When I met Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal, I noticed that he was sick and bedridden, but appeared to be capable of hearing and speaking and seeing"
(ii)"I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the Testator was suffering from paralysis at the time of execution of the Will Exhibit PW3/1"
PW-4 in his examination-in-chief states that "Since the Testator was lying ill he could not accompany us to the office of the Sub-Registrar for the registration of the Will"
In the cross-examination, this witness states that :
"The Testator was found lying on his bed when I reached there. His wife had given him support in order to place to place him in such a position that he could sign the Will. The Testator appear to be suffering from paralytic stroke and his hands were shaking while affixing his signatures. I cannot say if any part of the body of the Testator had been incapacitated on account of paralysis, but I can say that his speech was slurred"
PW-5 in his examination-in-chief deposes as under:
(i)"He was fully conscious at the time of examination and was paralysed on one side of the body. I had obtained his signature and left thumb impression........"
In cross-examination, he states that
(i)"I have not brought any record today to show that Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal was meciallly examined"
(ii)"I am not a general practitioner but a cardiologist. It is correct that problem relating to paralysis is in the domain of neuro sciences. It is correct that I am not a neurologist and I am a cardiologist"
(iii)"I had gone to see the patients knowing that he had a neuro problem. It is my normal practice to visit patients who are suffering form problems other than cardiology, may be neuro or paediatric or any other problem. I did not recommend any EEG to the patient nor did I recommend any scanning of the brain or any part of his body vol. He was being treated by someone else"
(iv)"I merely sat there for a minute or two and put certain questions, then I examined the patients gave a medical certificate..........."
There is no medical certificate on record.
6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as also the material on record, where the will has been drafted upon instruction of a person not produced in court as witness, the testator being infirm and in poor health, paralysed on the left side and died shortly after the alleged execution of the document as also the statement that the testator himself put his thumb impression creates grave doubt on the veracity of the will. In view of the glaring contradictions and discrepancies amongst witnesses, this is definitely not a document that can be relied upon. I have no doubt that Will Ex.PW3/1 is a sham document. In this view of the matter, I uphold the impugned judgment under challenge. FAO 181/2000 is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. CMs 878-879/2000 are also disposed of.