Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 1334
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Gurmel Singh (Deceased) Alias Gurmel Dass Represented By His Lrs
Versus
Kartar Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 849 of 1983,
Decided On : AUGUST 30, 1996
The onus lies on the propounder of a will to prove its due and valid execution and to remove any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution by cogent and satisfactory evidence.
Headnote:
WILL - REVOCATION - FORGERY - BURDEN OF PROOF - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - STANDARD OF PROOF - PROBATE - VALIDITY OF WILL - ONUS OF PROOF - REMOVAL OF SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - EVIDENCE - HANDWRITING EXPERT - STANDARD SIGNATURES - DISPUTED SIGNATURES - COMPARISON - FAILURE TO EXAMINE HANDWRITING EXPERT - INFERENCE - UNNATURAL AND SHAKY STATEMENTS OF ATTESTING WITNESS AND SCRIBE - FAILURE TO REMOVE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - FORGED WILL - PROBATE DENIED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Gurmel Singh filed a suit for possession of land, claiming to be the successor of Mahant Mal Singh, who died issueless and without a wife. The defendant, Kartar Singh, claimed the land based on a will executed by Mal Singh in his favor. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was the natural heir of Mal Singh and that the will in favor of the defendant was a forgery. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the will in favor of the defendant was a forgery and that the defendant had failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. The court noted that the signatures on the will were not similar to the standard signatures of Mal Singh, that the attesting witness and the scribe gave shaky and unnatural statements, and that the defendant failed to examine a handwriting expert to compare the signatures. The court also noted that the defendant had made contradictory statements about the existence of the will and that he had failed to produce the original will.
Issues: 1. Whether the will in favor of the defendant was a forgery? 2. Whether the defendant had removed the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the onus lies on the propounder of a will to prove its due and valid execution and to remove any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution by cogent and satisfactory evidence. In the present case, the defendant failed to discharge this burden. The court also held that the failure of the defendant to examine a handwriting expert to compare the signatures on the will with the standard signatures of Mal Singh raised an inference that the signatures on the will were not genuine.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant as prayed for in the plaint.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. Unsuccessful plaintiff Gurmel Singh has filed the present R.S.A. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1982 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who accepted the appeal of defendant Kartar Singh and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1978 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Ludhiana, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant Gurmel Singh for possession of the suit land.
2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner.
3. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that Mal Singh son of Harnam Singh son of Basawa? Singh was owner of land measuring 13 Kanals 15 Marlas as described in the head note of the plaint. Said Mal Singh was the Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass who was chela of Smt. Kirpoo of village Khandoor and belonged to Udasi. Said Mahant Mal Singh succeeded to Mahant Bishan Pass after his death and also succeeded to the land measuring 53 Kanals 5 Marlas in the capacity of Mohtamim. The plaintiff was appointed as Chela by Late Mahant Mal Singh and was treated as so during his life time. Mal Singh executed a valid will dated 25.3.1971 in sound disposing mind reciting that the plaintiff-Gurmel Singh was his Chela and would be Mahant of the Dera after his death. The plaintiff succeeded to the property of Mal Singh both movable and immovable. The will was registered with Registrar. Said Mal Singh died on 24.7.1972 and on 9.8.1972 as per custom of the Udasis, the Bhaikh assembled in village Khandoor and appointed the plaintiff as Mahant of Dera according to the wishes of Mal Singh deceased. Mal Singh died issueless and without any wife. Babu Singh son of Harnam Singh son of Basawa Singh succeeded to the secular estate of Mal Singh, being his real brother. Said Babu Singh died leaving behind the plaintiff as sole heir. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the secular estate of Mal Singh measuring 13 Kanals 15 Marlas under the Hindu Succession Act, or alternatively, on the basis of registered will dated 25.3.1971 (Exhibit P-1). The plaintiff is also entitled to succeed to the land measuring 53 Kanals 5 Marlas as he was the duly appointed Mahant by the Bhaikh of the institution to which the land is attached. Defendant Kartar Singh, who is a Jat Sikh by caste, and has nothing to do with the Dera, got the mutation of the land, described in the head note of the plaint, in his favour on the basis of some forged will. The defendant has trespassed over the land in dispute since 1974. He was asked several times to vacate the possession of the land and admit the plaintiff as owner of the land measuring 13 Kanals 15 Marlas and admit the plaintiff to be Mohtamin and Mahant of the Udasi institution and thus entitled to the land measuring 58 Kanals 5 Marlas. But to no effect. Hence the suit.
4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who contested the suit by alleging that Mal Singh deceased was not Mahant in the strict sense, though he used to call himself as Mahant but he was the Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass, who was the Chela of Smt. Kirpoo of Village Khandoor. Mahant Bishan Dass was the owner of land measuring 53 Kanals 5 Marlas in secular character and not as Mohtamim, as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant denied that the land in dispute was ever attached with the Dera. The defendant admitted that Mal Singh executed a will dated 25th March, 1971 (Exhibit P-1), but the said will was revoked by the deceased by another registered will dated 20.7.1971 (Exhibit D-1). Thereafter Mal Singh executed one more will dated 30.12.1971 (Exhibit D-2) in sound disposing mind and this was the last will of Mahant Mal Singh. On the basis of the will dated 30.12.1971 (Exhibit D-2) mutation was rightly sanctioned in favour of the defendant, who succeeded to the estate of deceased Mal Singh, who never appointed the plaintiff as Chela. Rather deceased Mal Singh described the plaintiff as undesirable p
