Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

suspicious circumstances, which could be sufficient to hold that Will Ex.PW3/ A is null and void. In the aforesaid background, Mr. .

Sharma, strenuously argued that instant appeal may be accepted and the suit having been filed by the plaintiffs may be decreed after setting- aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

12. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel of representing the respondents-defendants, supported the judgment passed by both the Courts below. While referring to rt the judgment passed by the Courts below, Mr. Kanwar forcibly contended that bare perusal of the judgment and decree suggests that the same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and there is no scope, whatsoever, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially in view of concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by both the Courts below. With a view to rebut the arguments having been advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellants/plaintiffs, Mr.Kanwar, specifically invited the attention of this Court to the statement of PW-1 i.e. natural guardian of plaintiffs No.1 and 2, Ram Chander and Mela Ram, to demonstrate that Will Ex.PW3/A was rightly held to be invalid by the Courts below because PW-1 in his cross-examination specifically admitted that he and his brother had got the Will scribed. He also invited the attention of this Court to other ...10...

22. rt PW-2, Ram Singh Chauhan, produced the record from the District Office and stated that the Will dated 5.10.2002 is/was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Paonta Sahib as per his record.

23. PW-3, Rakesh Gupta, the scribe of the Will stated that he has been working as Document Writer for the last so many years. He also produced his register and stated that on 5.10.2002, Sh. Rakha Ram son of Sh. Basanta had got the will scribed from him. He also stated that Will was scribed by him on the instructions of Sh. Rakha Ram and thereafter, was readover and explained to him and after admitting the same to be correct, he had put his thumb mark on the same. He further stated that witnesses Baru Ram and Duggal also put their signatures on the document. As per him, testator was of sound ...16...

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]"

.

26. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that attesting witness Duggal was not examined for the reasons better known to the plaintiffs because as per the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court second attesting witness namely Duggal Singh was present in the Court but was given by of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. PW-1, in his cross-examination in no uncertain terms admitted that Will rt Ex.PW3/A was got scribed by him as well as his brother. If aforesaid specific admission having been made by PW-1 is read and analyzed juxtaposing the statement of PW-4, Baru Ram, who happened to be attesting witness, it certainly compels this Court to conclude that Will was not scribed at the instance of the testator Sh. Rakha Ram, rather same was got scribed by Chiranji and his brother, who happened to be the natural guardians of the plaintiffs. PW-4 like PW-1 also admitted in his cross-examination that the document upon which he put his signatures was got prepared by Chiranji and Baldev. Aforesaid candid admission having been made by PW-1 and PW-4 clearly belies the stand taken by PW-3, Rakesh Gupta, scriber of the Will that he scribed the Will at the instance of testator Sh.Ram Rakha.

...19...

27. True, it is that PW-3, Rakesh Gupta scriber of the Will deposed that Will Ex.PW3/A was scribed by him on the .

instructions of Sh. Rakha Ram and thereafter readover and explained to him, but PW-1 himself admitted that he got the Will scribed. PW-4, Baru Ram also admitted that due to old age, Rakha Ram was suffering from poor vision and was also hard of hearing. Aforesaid statement having been made on behalf of of the PW-4 clearly suggests that Rakha Ram was not in a position to get the Will scribed from PW-3, as claimed by him in his rt statement. PW-4 specifically stated that though Sh. Rakha Ram was present at the time of scribing of the Will but same was prepared by Chiranji Lal and Baldev. Hence, this Court sees no infirmity and illegality in the findings returned by the Courts below that Will Ex.PW3/A is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Similarly, this Court notices material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses adduced on record by the appellants/plaintiffs. PW-3, Rakesh Gupta though stated that the Will Ex.PW3/A was scribed by him on the instructions of Sh. Rakha Ram and he had readover and explained the contents of the Will to Sh.Rakha Ram and after admitting the same to be correct, Rakha Ram put his thumb mark on the same but admittedly there is nothing in his statement suggestive of the fact that he readover and explained the contents of the Will in the presence of the ...20...