IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Proof of execution of Will – It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but test of satisfaction of prudent mind has to be applied – If one attesting witness can prove execution of Will, examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with.
(2) Interpretation of Statute – One should not read ‘and’ as ‘or’ or vice-versa unless one is obliged to do so by discernible legislative intent.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.

1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 1935 of 2015 dated 26th March 2018 whereby it has been held that the Will, subject matter of controversy, allegedly of one Sanjhi Ram, had not been proved, thereby finding that the Lower Appellate Court¹[Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2011, judgment dated 5th September 2014 delivered by The Court of Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur.] had erred in holding otherwise. The said Lower Appellate Court had set aside the decree of the Civil Court²[ Civil Suit No. 282 of 2006, judgment dated 24th February 2011 delivered by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gurdaspur.] which had found that the Will and the subsequent mutation of the properties enumerated therein was bad in law, as the Will was “illegal”, “null” and “void”. The question that falls for our consideration is-

“What do the words “by the direction of the testator” as they appear in Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 mean? Is the term to be interpreted liberally or strictly? Consequently, was the High Court correct in holding, in agreement with the Civil Court, that the Will, subject matter of dispute, stood not proved?”

2. Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as they appear from the record are as follows:-

2.1 Sanjhi Ram³[Testator], was the owner of 1/4th share of land measuring 40 canals, 3 marlas, comprised in Khewat no.7, Khatauni no.9, Rett no. 9, Kila no. 9/8 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Umarpura, Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab. His share in the aforesaid property was to the extent of 10 canals and 1 marla⁴[Suit property].

2.2 The Testator had no children and resided with his nephew Gopal Krishan⁵[Hereafter appellant no.1]. He executed a Will on 7th November 2005 and passed away the next day on 8th November 2005. The death certificate issued by the competent authority is dated 19th November 2005.

2.3 Having received the property by virtue of the aforesaid Will, the appellant transferred the same in favour of his four sons viz., Ravinder Kumar; Rajinder Kumar; Satish Kumar and Roop Lal vide Sale Deed dated 16th January 2006. The said property was sold jointly for a sum of Rs.98,000/- to Madhu Sharma and Meena Kumari, vide Sale Deed dated 3rd February 2006.

2.4 Respondent nos.1 to 7 herein filed a Suit bearing No. 282 of 2006 before the Civil Court, seeking declaration to the effect inter alia (i) that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) were the owners of Sanjhi Ram’s 1/4th share; (ii) that the Will dated 7th November 2005 was forged and fabricated; and (iii) that the mutation carried out subsequent to the execution of such a Will is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.

2.5 By way of written statement dated 24th April 2006 the contentions made in the plaint were denied.

3. The Trial Court framed seven issues primarily pertaining to, (a) validity of the Will subject matter of the present lis; (b) whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit; and (c) whether the plaintiffs have the locus standi to file the suit and whether the same is maintainable, within limitation and filed with sufficient court fees, being affixed thereto.

3.1 Of primary importance to the present adjudication is the findings qua issue no.1. The relevant extracts from the judgment of the Civil Court are as below:-

“10. On going through the file I find it has been admitted by the witnesses of the defendants that Sanjhi Ram remained ill. The claim of the Plaintiffs is that he died on 7.11.2005 and the claim of the Defendants that the died on 8.11.2005. The defendants did not being the death certificate of Shri Sanjhi Ram on the file and thus failed to rebut the contention of the Plaintiffs. The visit of Sanjhi Ram at Tehsil Gurdaspur on 7.11.2005 and then executing the Will on the said day without any registration of the same and adjustment of lines on the page in the lower portion and furth