Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant, who has lost in both the Courts below.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Mandra Devi, had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in respect of estate of her husband namely Ramesh Chand which is fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. Ramesh Chand, husband of the plaintiff, died on 30.07.1983 and the plaintiff being the only legal heir is entitled to succeed the estate of her husband. It was alleged that the defendant is very head strong person and being influential in the locality managed to procure some forged document alleged to be the Will having been executed by deceased Ramesh Chand in his favour during his life. The alleged Will is invalid, inoperative and ineffective and has no bearing on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. It was further alleged that on the basis of the alleged Will the defendant has started extending threats to interfere over the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement wherein he raised preliminary objections that the plaintiff was neither widow of deceased Ramesh Chand nor his legal heir and thus had no concern with the suit property. On merits, it was admitted that Ramesh Chand son of Biru was owner of the suit land, but it was specifically denied that he was married to plaintiff. Ramesh Chand, infact, was unmarried and was living with the defendant. Since the plaintiff was neither the widow of Ramesh Chand nor his legal heir, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit property. It was admitted by the defendant that Ramesh Chand died on 30.07.1983 and during his lifetime he bequeathed his entire property including the suit land in favour of the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 25.07.1983. Lastly, it was alleged that the defendant is in possession of the suit property on the basis of the aforesaid Will.

4. Plaintiff filed replication whereby she reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and denied the averments made by the defendant in the written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 04.02.1985:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is the widow of deceased Ramesh Chand. If so, its effect? OPP

2. Whether the deceased Ramesh Chand executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant as alleged? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action? OPP.

4. Relief.

6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court on 31.03.1994 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree by the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, the appellant has filed the present appeal and this Court was pleased to admit the same on the following substantial question of law: -

“Whether the learned Courts below have misread and misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence on record especially the statements of PW-2 Mandra Devi, PW-5 Surat Ram, PW-6 Ujjagar Singh, DW-1 Subhash Kumar, DW-3 Om Parkash, DW-4 Balak Ram (both marginal witnesses), Ex.D1 extract of family register, Ex.DX extract of pass book, Ex.DA extract of voter list and Ex.DW-2/A Registered Will dated 25-7-1997 (it should be 25.07.1983)?”

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

8. Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the Will Ex.DW-2/A has been duly executed in accordance with the requirements of law. He further contended that once the appellant had proved the due execution of the Will, then the onus shifted on the plaintiff/respondent to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that the Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. He further contended that merely because there is no recital in the Will regarding disinheritance of the plaintiff, who was not eve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document