Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On the other hand, as per learned senior counsel, the signatures compared from the site plan, with the standard signatures of Mehtab Singh from his bank account as also from the Will admittedly executed by him, were found to be differing from each other by PW4, and consequently the appellant-plaintiff had duly proved that the sale deed was a fabricated/fraudulently executed one.

In this context, he pointed to the photocopy of a site plan from the record of evidence led before the learned trial court, which is seen to be a marked document fixed at a place prior to the first exhibit relied upon by defendant no.1, i.e. the sale deed, Ex.D1.

He then drew attention to the signatures seen on that document as also on the admitted Will, Ex.PW7/1, to submit that the signatures were very obviously different even to the naked eye, i.e. both, the signatures in English as also those in Gurmukhi.

v) Last, learned senior counsel for the appellant again reiterated that with the Will admittedly executed 11 days after even the document set up by the contesting respondent, it was extremely strange that Mehtab Singh would not even refer to that fact in the will, and would simply refer to his house as a single unit, without stating therein that it would be considered as two separate units, i.e. one sold by him to Jagtar Singh and the remaining to be divided between his sons equally.

Yet, with the aforesaid endorsement having been made on the admitted Will, I would not hold that Mehtab Singhs' condition was not as is described therein, with PW7 (Dr. Grover) also stating that the Will had been signed by Mehtab Singh in his presence.

41. Consequently, in my opinion, even while attaching sanctity to a registered document (sale deed) that has not been otherwise disproved to have been executed, I would have to express my reservation on whether it was actually Mehtab Singh who executed it, with him not having referred to it at all in his will, which as per the admitted case of even respondent no.1, was executed 10-11 days later; thereby making the sale to be a suspicious transaction, seen further with the fact that, even if executed by Mehtab Singh, the sale itself cannot be held to be a valid transaction in the absence of any sale consideration duly proved to have been paid.