Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1268 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. Surjit Kaur

2002-11-21

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Pritam Singh, defendant, against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1985, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal, filed by Smt. Surjit Kaur plaintiff, was accepted, the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Smt Surjit Kaur and Jamail Singh (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration against Pritam Singh and others (defendants), alleging therein that the plaintiffs were the sole owners of the land measuring 29 kanals 19 marlas, by virtue of the Will dated 5.5.1969, executed by Puran Singh, deceased, and that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit property. It was alleged that Labh Singh had sold the suit land to Puran Singh, father of plaintiff No. 2, and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through Prem Chand, as per the decree passed by the Civil Court and as such the suit property was the self-acquired property of Puran Singh. It was alleged that plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2, husband of plaintiff No. 1 had rendered all kind of help to Puran Singh, deceased, in prosecuting the Civil Suit and had been rendering services to Puran Singh, deceased, and that plaintiff No. 1 had also rendered services to Puran Singh, deceased, in his old age. It was alleged that Puma Singh, deceased, made Will on 5.5.1969 in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the suit land. It was further alleged that Puran Singh had mortgaged this land with Jagir Singh for paying the sale price to the vendees and that since then, Jagir Singh was in possession of the entire land as mortgagee. It was alleged that the Revenue Officers had wrongly sanctioned mutation of inheritance No. 438 dated 26.3.1981 in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, in equal shares, ignoring the Will dated 5.5.1969, which was validly executed by Puran Singh in his sound disposing mind in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 by filing written statement taking up the plea that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and that the suit was not maintainable. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 by filing written statement taking up the plea that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and that the suit was not maintainable. On merits, it was alleged that plaintiff No. 2 or defendant No. 2 never rendered any help to Puran Singh, deceased, in prosecuting the Civil Suit nor they rendered any services to him. It was denied that plaintiff No. 1 had rendered any services to Puran Singh. It was also denied that Puran Singh, deceased, had ever executed any Will in favour of the plaintiffs, as alleged. It was alleged that the said Will was fabricated document. It was admitted that Puran Singh had mortgaged the land with Jagir Singh and he was in possession of the suit land as mortgagee. It was alleged that the mutation had rightly been sanctioned by the Revenue officers in favour of the natural heirs and had rightly rejected the Will as highly suspicious and fabricated document. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues. 4. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the execution of the Will dated 5.5.1969, by Puran Singh, deceased in their favour. However, the appeal, filed by Smt. Surjit Kaur, plaintiff, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, holding that the execution of the Will in question was fully proved on the record. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Pritam Singh, defendant, filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 5. During the pendency of the Appeal, the learned counsel for Pritam Singh, appellant, filed an application for amendment of the grounds of appeal, so as to incorporate the substantial questions of law involved in this Appeal. Vide order dated 14.8.2002, the application of the appellant was allowed and the amended grounds of Appeal, incorporating the substantial questions of law, was taken on the record. 6. It was submitted before me by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in law in placing reliance on the Will Ex. Vide order dated 14.8.2002, the application of the appellant was allowed and the amended grounds of Appeal, incorporating the substantial questions of law, was taken on the record. 6. It was submitted before me by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in law in placing reliance on the Will Ex. P1, allegedly executed by Puran Singh, deceased, in favour of the plaintiffs. It was submitted that no reasons had been given by the testator for ignoring the Class-I heirs and executing the Will, Ex.P1, in favour of the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that the Will Ex.P1, was allegedly executed on 5.5.1969, whereas the testator died on 18.12.1969 and nothing had come on the record to show as to why the Will was not got registered during the intervening period of seven months. It was further submitted that the Will in question had not seen the light of the day for more than 10 years and this was a suspicious circumstance to create a doubt about the genuineness of the Will in question. It was further submitted that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW Jagir Singh, the only attesting witness produced in this case, considering that he was an interested witness, being the mortgagee and was interested to continue in possession of the suit land. It was further submitted that the other attesting witness, namely Zail Singh, had not been examined and this would also create a doubt about the genuineness of the Will, Ex.P1. It was further submitted that the beneficiaries of the Will had actively participated in the execution of the Will and this will also create a doubt about the genuineness of the Will. Reliance was placed on the law laid down, in the case reported Jai Singh and Anr. v. Bhim Singh and Anr., (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 581. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no illegality in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, which may require interference by this Court. 8. Reliance was placed on the law laid down, in the case reported Jai Singh and Anr. v. Bhim Singh and Anr., (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 581. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find no illegality in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, which may require interference by this Court. 8. The learned Additional District Judge, while accepting the appeal and upholding the validity of the Will Ex.P1, had found that even if the Will dated 5.5.19690 was handed-over by Puran Singh, deceased, to Jarnail Singh, plaintiff, during his life time (the date of death of Puran Singh being 18.12.1969), if could not be said that there was any delay on the part of the plaintiffs in producing the Will. While coming to this conclusion, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that even if the Will was produced for the first time before the revenue Officers on 21.2.1980, during mutation proceedings, there was no delay on the part of the plaintiffs, inasmuch as nothing has come on the record to show that the plaintiffs had any earlier occasion to produce the Will or that inspite of any such occasion, the plaintiffs had failed to produce the Will, Ex. P1. under those circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge found that the authenticity of the Will, Ex.P1, could not be doubted merely because of late production of the Will, Ex.P1, before the Revenue Officers. It was also found by the learned Additional District Judge that the Will in question was scribed by Deva Singh, whose son, Jagjit Singh, had appeared in the witness box as PW1 and had also produced the register, which was kept on the record. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that the entries in the said register were made serial wise and there was nothing to show that there was any interpolation in the register on the part of the scribe. It was also found by the learned Additional District Judge that the statement of Jagir Singh, attesting witness, was cogent and convincing. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that merely because only one of the attesting witness was examined, would not be sufficient to doubt the execution of the Will. Ex.P1. It was also found by the learned Additional District Judge that the statement of Jagir Singh, attesting witness, was cogent and convincing. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that merely because only one of the attesting witness was examined, would not be sufficient to doubt the execution of the Will. Ex.P1. Similarly, the testimony of Jagir Singh, PW, could not be brushed aside merely on the ground that he was the mortgagee, especially when nothing has come on the record to show that he would in any way be interested in the plaintiffs. It was also found by the learned Additional District Judge that the Will in question could not be said to be unnatural, especially when Puran Singh had given his property to one of his sons and the wife of another son (plaintiffs) and for giving this property to the plaintiffs, Puran Singh, deceased, had given valid reasons. It was also found by the learned Additional District Judge that the non-registration of the Will could not be taken as a suspicious circumstance to doubt the genuineness of the Will in question. It was also found that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that the plaintiffs had actively participated in the execution of the Will, especially when Ajaib Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 1, and Jarnail Singh, plaintiff No. 2, were living away from Punjab and had no occasion to exercise undue influence upon Puran Singh, deceased, and that mere presence of Ajaib Singh and Jarnail Singh, would not be enough to create a doubt about the genuineness of the Will in question. 9. In my opinion, the reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge, for placing reliance on the Will, Ex. P1, are cogent and convincing. Nothing has come on the record to create a doubt about the genuineness of the said Will, The learned trial Court, while ignoring the Will, had found that there was delay in producing the Will, the entries in the register of the describe were suspicious, only one attesting witness was, examined, the Will was unnatural and the age of the executant had been wrongly mentioned. In my opinion, all these reasons were duly considered by the learned Additional District Judge and it was found that there was no suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will, which may be sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the Will in question. During the course of arguments before me, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant could not point out anything which may be sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the Will in question. In fact, after going through the Will, Ex.P1, and other oral an documentary evidence, led by the parties, it could not be said that the Will in question was shrouded with suspicious circumstances nor there is any other reason to doubt the genuineness of the will, Ex.P1. Merely because there was some time gap between the death of Puran Singh and the production of the Will before the Revenue officers, during mutation proceedings, by itself, would be no ground to discard the Will in question, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Similarly, the presence of the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the Will, would also be of not relevant, especially when there is nothing on the record to show that they had actively participated in the execution of the Will in question. Similarly, the non-registration of the Will would be neither here nor there nor the genuineness of the Will could be doubted because only one of the attesting witness was examined and not the other one. With regard to the register of the scribe, the learned Additional District Judge, after going through the register, had come to a definite finding that there was no interpolation in the said register. With regard to the register of the scribe, the learned Additional District Judge, after going through the register, had come to a definite finding that there was no interpolation in the said register. A perusal of the Will, Ex.P1, would further show that Puran Singh, deceased, while executing the Will in favour of the plaintiffs, namely Surjit Kaur, w/o Ajaib Singh, and Jarnail Singh, had categorically stated that his sons, Ajaib Singh and Jarnail Singh had incurred the expenses of litigation, vide which the land in question had been given to him by filing the Civil Suit and that both the brothers had a right to succeed to his land, in equal shares, which land was obtained after filing the above said suit; In my opinion, the executor of the Will namely Puran Singh, had given cogent reasons as to why he had executed the Will in question in favour of the plaintiffs, namely Surjit Kaur w/o Ajaib Singh and Jar-nail Singh. That being the position, in my opinion, the Will in question, is quite natural and cannot be ignored merely because Puran Singh had not given anything to his other sons, etc. Furthermore, Jagir Singh, PW, could not be said to be an interested witness merely because he was the mortgagee of the land in question and it would be no ground to discard the testimony of this witness. Nothing has come on the record to show as to what interest Jagir Singh, PW, had in favour of the plaintiffs. So far as he is concerned, he would continue as the mortgagee, irrespective of the fact whether the plaintiffs would get the property and whether all the natural heirs of Puran Singh would get the property. Thus, non-examination of the other attesting witness would be neither here nor there. 10. The authority Jai Singh v. Bhim Singh, (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 581 (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, would be of no help to the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the reported case, the only attesting witness examined was found to be interested and under those circumstances, it was held that the other independent witness should have been examined. In the reported case, the only attesting witness examined was found to be interested and under those circumstances, it was held that the other independent witness should have been examined. Furthermore, the Will in question was mentioned for the first time after 19 years and no explanation had come as to why it was not produced before the Municipal authorities and the pro-pounder of the Will was a government employee and was required to submit the property statement and had not shown the plot in question in the property statement. It was under those circumstances that the Will was held to be not a valid document. However, as referred to above, the facts of this case are entirely different and the law laid down in this authority would be of no help to the appellant. 11. Furthermore, in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. v. Panchanam Banerjee and Ors.? (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 594 (S.C.), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the deprivation of the natural heirs by the testarix should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will was to interfere with the normal line of succession and that the natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will; of course, it may be that in some cases they were fully debarred and in other only partially. In Naranjan Singh v. Mst. Dipo and Ors., 1976 P.L.J. 523, it was held by this Court that mere presence of beneficiary at the time of execution of Will, was not sufficient to hold that the Will was got executed by under influence. Reliance in this regard was placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Surendra Pal and Ors. v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora and Anr., A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1999. 12. In Smt. Rukman (a) (Rukmani v. Ujagar Singh and Ors., (1983)85 P.L.R. 386, it was held by this Court that the law did not require the Will to be a registered one simply because there was time for registration but if it was not registered, it did not mean that it was a suspicious circumstance attaching to its execution by the testator. Similarly, in Atma Singh v. Smt. Guro and Ors., 1983 C.L.J. (C&Cr.), 75 it was held by this Court that the registration of a Will is not compulsory and no prejudice could be shown to an unregistered Will and that Will cannot be disbelieved merely because it was not registered. 13. In Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane v. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar and Ors., AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2086, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that a Will has to be proved like any other document and that the propounder, in the absence of any suspicious circumstances, surrounding the execution of the Will, was required to prove the testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator. After considering various authorities of the Supreme Court, it was found that some of the suspicious circumstances, which the Court had taken note of, were (i) the propounder taking a prominent part in the execution of a Will, which confers substantial benefits on him; (ii) Shaky signature; (iii) a feeble mind which is likely to be influenced; and (iv) unfair and unjust disposal of property. In the reported case, no such circumstances were present and hence the validity of the Will was upheld. In my opinion, the law laid down in this authority could not be taken against the plaintiffs, especially when nothing has come on the record to show that the plaintiffs had taken prominent part in the execution of the Will. On the other hand, mere presence of the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the Will, would be neither here nor there. Thus, in my opinion, it could not be said that the Will in question was suffering from any suspicious circumstance. 14. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly placed reliance on the Will, Ex.P1, while accepting the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and no fault could be found with the same, furthermore, no substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. 15. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.