The burden of proving the validity of a Will rests on the propounder, and in the absence of suspicious circumstances, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof.

GITA MITTAL, J.

CM No.18973/2017 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM No.18971/2017 (Delay)

1. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties on this application.

2. We are satisfied that the appellants have adequately explained the circumstances in which the delay of 11 days in filing this appeal has occasioned. The delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The application is disposed of.

FAO(OS) 157/2017

1. The appellant assails the order dated 10th March, 2017 where by the ld. Single Judge has rejected I.A.No.3067/2017 filed by the appellants herein (defendants no.1 and 2 in the suit) which was filed under order XIV rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants had prayed that issue no.3 framed by the ld. Single Judge on the pleadings of the parties by the order dated 11th June, 2017 be modified to the extent that the onus regarding proof of the Will placed therein be corrected and the onus to disprove the same be placed on the plaintiff.

2. We may note that by the impugned order dated 10th March, 2017, the ld. Single Judge accepted the prayer for correction of the date of the Will as sought by the defendant no.1 in the application. However, the prayer of the appellants/defendants to shift the onus of burden to disprove the Will on the plaintiff instead of the defendant was rejected.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are within the narrow compass and to the extent necessary are noted hereafter.

4. CS(OS)No.76/2012 was filed by Raja Prem Singh (Respondent herein) seeking partition of the properties of Late Rajmata Devendra Kumari in equal shares between her class 1 legal heirs as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the consequential relief of possession.

5. The respondent had also prayed for separate possession of the shares of the plaintiff urging that he was in a constructive possession of the same.

6. So far as pedigree and the relationship of the parties to the suit as well as in the appeal is concerned, the same is discerned or the pedigree of the table of the family set out in para 2 of the plaint which reads as follow:    

7. Thus the respondent/plaintiff is a son of Raja of Chamba Late Raja Laxman Singh who died on 20th May, 1971 leaving behind his widow Rajmata Devendra Kumari, and two sons, i.e., the respondent/plaintiff as elder son and late RajkumarBrijendra Singh being the younger son, as well as two daughters, namely, late Rajkumari Durga Kumari and Rajkumari Padma Kumari. 8. As such, the respondent/plaintiff has urged that the following are the class I legal heirs of Late Rajmata Devendra Kumari:

“(i) Raja Prem Singh (the plaintiff)

(ii) Rajkumari Padma Kumari (defendant no.3)

(iii) Late Rajkumar Brijender Singh, Through his legal heirs:

(a) Ravinandani, D/o Rajkumar Brijender Singh (defendant no.1)

(b) Asha Kumari, W/o Late Rajkumar Brijender Singh (defendant no.2)”

9. The plaint makes an extensive reference to a family settlement regarding the Estate of Late Raja Laxman Singh and the devolution of shares upon the parties.

10. The respondent/plaintiff has urged that Late Rajkumar Brijender Singh got his name registered in the revenue records in collusion with the Revenue Officers without giving notice to the plaintiff and also refers to other litigation. So far as the suit is concerned, the respondent has urged that it came to his knowledge that Late Rajkumar Brijender Singh, his wife (defendant no.2) and his daughter (defendant no.3) were attempting to get the property owned by Rajm