Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 12.1.1981 regarding land measuring 6 Biswas 13 ½ Biswasi out of land measuring 1 Bigha19 Biswas and 5 Biswasi bearing khewat No.45 Khatauni No.84 Khasra No.132 situated at village Rangian Hat Bast No.332 Tehsil and District Ludhiana executed by Sant Singh deceased in favour of defendant No.1, to be void, illegal, without consideration, bogus, sham transaction and not binding on the plaintiff. As a consequential relief, possession of the land was sought. The plaintiff claimed that Kehar Singh had three sons namely Rattan Singh, Jawahar Singh and Sant Singh. Plaintiff/respondent is the widow of Rattan Singh, whereas Sant Singh was impleaded as defendant No.2 and Jawahar Singh as defendant No.3. Kehar Singh died on 14.12.1975. It is the case of the plaintiff that Kehar Singh executed a registered Will dated 6.3.1959 in favour of Jagdev Singh son of Rattan Singh. Jagdev Singh also died on 14.1.1982. He was said to be unmarried and the plaintiff being mother succeeded to the estate of Jagdev Singh.

After the death of Kehar Singh dispute arose regarding mutation of his estate. Mutation was first sanctioned in favour of natural heirs by ignoring the Will. The plaintiff claimed that taking advantage of the mutation Sant Singh father of defendant No.2 sold the disputed land in favour of defendant No.1 by way of registered sale deed dated 12.6.1981. It is the case of the plaintiff that Sant Singh had no right to alienate any part of the land left by Kehar Singh in view of the Will having been executed by Kehar Singh in favour of Jagdev Singh. It is also the case of the plaintiff that mutation of estate of Kehar Singh now stood sanctioned in favour of Jagdev Singh and that the suit filed by defendants No.2 and 3 against Jagdev Singh challenging the Will dated 6.3.1959 stands dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, Ludhiana.

2. Whether the suit has been filed in accordance with the permission granted to the plaintiff? OPP
3. Whether the permission granted is illegal? P{D
4. Whether Tej Kaur is the heir of Jagdev Singh? OPP
5. Whether Kehar Singh executed valid Will in favour of Jagdev Singh? OPP
6. Relief.

Learned trial court took up issue No.5 regarding the validity of the Will executed in favour of Jagdev Singh first and by taking into consideration the evidence led held that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

The plaintiff preferred an appeal. Learned lower appellate court reversed the fining on issue No.5 by holding that mere non-mentioning of other natural heirs of Kehar Singh in the Will did not make the Will invalid. It was also held that absence of any reason as to why other legal representatives were disinherited is not a ground to doubt the Will. Learned lower appellate court observed that it was proved on record that other legal representatives of Kehar Singh were residing outside the village and only Rattan Singh son of Kehar Singh and father of Jagdev Singh was residing in the village with Kehar Singh so it was natural for him to execute the Will in favour of Jagdev Singh his grand-son who as per the Will used to render necessary services along with his father to Kehar Singh, therefore, it was on account of love and affection that the Will was executed in favour of Jagdev Singh, his grand-son. The learned lower appellate court observed that there was no evidence on record to prove that assertion of misrepresentation of putting pressure on Kehar Singh, as alleged. Learned lower appellate court observed that the will was scribed by Khem Raj, PW.1 a licenced Deed Writer of Malaut and the same was attested by three witnesses namely Bakhtawar Singh PW 2, Kartar Singh Lamberdar and one Bhajan Singh. The Will was registered by Shri Amar Surjit Singh, Sub- Registrar of Malaut who was examined as PW 3. The learned lower appellate court observed that the execution of the Will was duly proved and it made no difference if Kehar Singh was not personally known to scribe or regarding authenticity. The learned lower appellate court also held that as no suggestion was put to the witnesses that the Will was not singed by the attesting witnesses, the attestation could not be doubted. The learned lower appellate court also observed that Bakhtawar Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, proved the execution of the Will. He deposed that Kehar Singh was in sound disposing state of mind. The evidence given by Bakhtawar Singh was supported by the evidence of Khem Raj, Deed Writer as PW 1. Entry in the deed writer register was also thumb marked by Kehar Singh. Registration of the Will was also proved by Sub-Registrar. The learned court observed that the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar carries presumption of truth, which was got proved from the Sub-Registrar Shri Amar Surjit Singh as PW 3. The learned lower appellate court held that merely because the witness Bakhtawar Singh belongs to other village could not be a reason to discard his testimony, especially when it was proved that he used to visit village Rangia, as he had inherited land in that village from his in-laws side. The learned court observed that merely because attesting witness belonged to another village is not a ground to discard his statement. The learned lower appellate court held that non-examination of other witnesses could not be said to be fatal to prove the Will as no suggestion was put to the witnesses that the Will was procured by Rattan Singh by misrepresentation or in collusion with the scribe or attesting witnesses.