Major General Kuldip Singh Bajwa (Retd) vs General Public And Others on 12 May, 2010
In this regard, counsel for respondent No.2 has
relied upon Krishna Devi and another v. Gian Kaur and others, 1981
Revenue Law Reporter 303. Learned counsel has further drawn the
attention of this Court to the statement of the petitioner in mutation
proceedings, Ex.R4 wherein he admitted that endorsements were typed at
home. He further states that the words `drafted by me' and `advocate' which
exist in the original Will are not there in the certified copy. He has further
pointed out that as per the statement, the entire process of typing, execution
and signatures on the Will were done continuously and in the circumstances
it is not explained as to why the date was mentioned in pen and why the
names of the witnesses were not typed but were written by hand. He
further states that in the petition it was mentioned that the original Will was
left in the custody of one M.S.Sandhu but it was not mentioned that who
was M.S.Sandhu or where he resided and that this was contrary to the
assertion by the petitioner that he collected the original Will from the
Registrar office. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the
Court to Ex.PW9/9, which was a complaint made by Gurnam Kaur against
the petitioner. He has referred to a suit filed in 1967 by the petitioner
against his mother and Amarjit Singh. He has also referred to the letters
Ex.R1 and R-3 which were written by the petitioner to Gurnam Kaur which,
as per the learned counsel, show the extent of difference between the son
and the mother. He has also referred to Ex.RW12/1 and Ex.RW12/2 which
were the notices issued by Jaswant Singh to Gurnam Kaur and Amarjit
Singh.