Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Respondent-defendant No. 1 examined three witnesses to prove the execution of the Will. The Will itself is Ex. DW-2/A. The witnesses examined by him are the scribe of the Will, namely DW-2 Hari Krishan, one of the attesting witnesses of the Will namely DW-3 Kalu and handwriting expert, namely DW-4 Shri K.N. Prashad.

8. No doubt, the scribe and the attesting witness, above named, testified that the Will was executed by Labhu in favour of respondent-defendant Kali Dass and that the Will was scribed on his instructions by DW-2 Hari Krishan and thereafter it was signed by Labhu himself and attested by DW-3 Kalu and one Jagar Nath, and the expert, examined by the defendant also testified that the signature, marked Q-l, on the Will tallies with the admitted signatures of Labhu on certain sale deeds, but some inconsistencies in the testimony of the scribe and the attesting witness, named above, as also the opinion of handwriting expert, namely PW-7 Shri S.K. Sexena, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, examined by the plaintiffs, create serious doubt about the validity of the Will.

10. The abovestated position apart, there are some apparent inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of respondent-defendant No. 1, who appeared as DW-1, and the scribe of the Will, namely DW-2 Hari Krishan and the attesting witness, namely DW-3 Kalu.

11. Scribe has stated that the Will was signed by Labhu with the same pen with which he had written it. However, a bare comparison of the signature and the body of the Will shows that the signature of Labhu is in a different ink, negating the claim that the same pen was used by Labhu to write his signature, as was used by the scribe to write the body of the Will and his own signature.

12. There is also no explanation why the scribe, who is a resident of a village two kilometers away from the village of the testator, had been called to write the Will, when the defendant's own evidence shows that there are educated persons available in the village itself. Furthermore, testator died only four days after the execution of the Will.

13. The scribe of the Will made a statement before the Revenue Officer, in the course of enquiry for attestation of mutation. The record of that mutation file is available being tagged with the trial Court's record. In the said statement, the scribe stated that Labhu had been seriously sick for two/three days prior to the execution of the Will and that he was brought out in the verandah on the first floor of the house, where the Will was executed, by being physically lifted by two persons. If that is so, the statement of the scribe in the Court that Labhu met him in a different village about two days prior to the date of execution of Will and asked him to visit his place for scribing the Will, cannot be believed.

14. Again, the scribe and the attesting witness examined in the Court have stated that the Will was scribed in the Khal, which means Courtyard, which is on the ground floor, but before the Revenue Officer the scribe stated that the Will was scribed in the Verandah of the first floor of the house of Labhu. Further, before the Revenue Officer respondent-defendant stated that he was present when the Will was scribed, but in the Court, while appearing as DW-1, he said that he was not present and that he came to know about the execution of the Will on the next following day, when the Will was handed over to him.