Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 994 (PNJ)

Mohinder Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh

2001-09-07

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned for the reasons contained in the application which is supported by an affidavit. 2. On merits, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the first instance that the identity of Dharam Singh has not been established. He submitted that Dharam Singh is the son of Arjan Singh son of Faqir Singh but in the Will Ex. D1 it is mentioned that Dharam Singh is the son of Arjun Ram son of Nathu Ram. He further submits that the name of the legatee has been written as Harbhajan Power instead of Harbhajan Singh. The first submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. There is no evidence on the record to show that there is any other person in the name of Harbhajan Singh son of Arjun Ram son of Nathu Ram residing at the said address. Moreover, the plaintiffs are none else but the real sisters of Harbhajan Singh defendant. Also, there is not an iota of suggestion given to Harbhajan Singh to this effect. In this view of the matter, I repel the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Harbhajan Singh defendant wanted to grab the land at all costs. Firstly, he put an exchange deeds and those exchange deeds have been disproved. Thereafter, he set up the forged Will. This submission of the learned counsel again cannot be accepted firstly for the reason that the Will is a registered document and it has been duly proved from the statements of the scribe as well as Naib Tehsildar, who registered the same. The Will is dated 20.3.1985. Dharam Singh died in the year 1994. 4. The third submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Will has not been duly proved as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. He submitted that neither of the attesting witnesses of the Will has been produced by the defendant. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant again cannot be accepted in view of the statement of Naib Tehsildar whose statement, in my opinion, has become that of an attesting witness. He submitted that neither of the attesting witnesses of the Will has been produced by the defendant. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant again cannot be accepted in view of the statement of Naib Tehsildar whose statement, in my opinion, has become that of an attesting witness. To quote with approval I can refer to the statement of PW3 Gurdev Singh, retired Tehsildar who stated that on 25.3.1985 when he was posted as Joint Sub Registrar at Phillaur, the Will Ex. D1 was presented before him by Dharam Singh son of Arjan Singh for its registration and that Dharam singh was accompanied by Sarwan Singh Numberdar and Pal Singh son of Harbans Singh, the marginal witnesses of the Will. He stated that he read out the contents of the Will to Dharam Singh in the presence of its marginal witnesses and Dharam Singh after admitting the same to be correct put his signatures. He further deposed that Dharam Singh was in good senses at that time. He then deposed that he knew Sarwan Singh Numberdar. Further, it has come in the statement of said witness that the attesting witnesses signed the Will in his presence. Moreover, one of the attesting witnesses namely Sarwan Singh has expired and the other Pal Singh has gone abroad and his presence could not be secured. This aspect of the case has also been well considered by the first Appellate Court. There is no suspicious circumstance shrouded the Will. It is also the admitted case of the parties that deceased Dharam Singh had three daughters who are well settled. In these circumstances, the anxiety of the holder of the property would be to keep the property in his male family. Harbhajan Singh, admittedly, is the sole son of the deceased. In these circumstances, I do not see any merit in this appeal, especially when the evidence with regard to the execution of the Will has been believed by two courts. Appeal dismissed.