Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1101
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Gurnam Kaur And Ors.
Versus
Amarjit Kaur And Ors.
Regular Second Appeal No. 3235 of 1997,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
A Will shrouded by suspicious circumstances, including late production, lack of page-marking in the scribe's register, unregistered nature, and the testator's signing in a script different from his usual one, can be disbelieved by the court, and the onus is on the propounders of the Will to remove such suspicious circumstances.
Headnote:
WILL - EXECUTION - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - DISBELIEF - PROBABILITY - PREFERENCE TO GRANDSONS OVER GRAND-DAUGHTER - NON-REGISTRATION - MAINTENANCE OF WIFE - REMOVAL OF SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - ONUS ON PROPOUNDERS - DISMISSAL OF SUIT FOR POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land, claiming ownership based on a Will executed by Rattan Singh in their favor. Defendant No. 1, Amarjit Kaur, claimed to be the granddaughter of Rattan Singh and entitled to a share in the property. The trial court and the first Appellate Court dismissed the suit, disbelieving the Will and holding that Amarjit Kaur was the granddaughter of Rattan Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances, including its late production, the lack of page-marking in the scribe's register, its unregistered nature, and Rattan Singh's signing in Urdu despite being a Gurmukhi script reader and writer. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not removed the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for Rattan Singh's preference for the plaintiffs over his wife and granddaughter.
Issues: 1. Whether the Will dated 4.3.1971 executed by Rattan Singh in favor of the plaintiffs was valid? 2. Whether Amarjit Kaur was the granddaughter of Rattan Singh? 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Will is not required to be registered, but its non-registration is a circumstance that can give strength to reasons for disbelieving its genuineness. 2. The onus is on the propounders of a Will to remove all suspicious circumstances surrounding it. 3. In cases where a testator prefers strangers over his close relatives, the court should scrutinize the Will closely and see if there is a satisfactory explanation for such preference.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' dismissal of the suit for possession.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. Plaintiffs remained unsuccessful in the trial Court as well as in the first Appellate Court and they have filed the present appeal which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.10.1991 vide which the suit of the plaintiffs for possession was dismissed.
2. Some facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner:-
Unsuccessful plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land fully described in the head-note of the plaint measuring 40 kanals 13 marlas on the allegations that the property in dispute was owned by one Rattan Singh son of Maghar Singh, resident of village Aujala. Rattan Singh owner had a son-in-law by the name of Rattan Singh son of Natha Singh. Rattan Singh, owner of the land, died in the year 1975. Jagir Kaur, defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Rattan Singh owner. The suit land was in possession of defendant No. 3. Plaintiffs Jarnail Singh, who is now being represented by Gurnam Kaur, Gur Iqbal Singh and Jagjit Singh, Phulwant Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Rachpal Singh and Jaspal Singh are the grandsons of Rattan Singh owner. Defendant No. 1 Amarjit Kaur claims that she is the daughter of Joginder Singh, pre-deceased of Rattan Singh owner. The case set up by the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that Rattan Singh owner had executed,a valid Will in their favour on 4.3.1971 and on the basis of that Will they have become the owners of the property and thus they are entitled to the possession of the said property. On the contrary, the contest given by the defendants was on the plea that Rattan Singh owner did not execute any Will in favour of the plaintiffs. The will propounded by the plaintiffs is a fabricated document. Amarjit Kaur, defendant No. 1, is the daughter of Joginder Singh, who is the pre-deceased son of Rattan Singh owner. Therefore, after the death of Rattan Singh owner she is entitled to 1/2 share of the property left by him. Defendants Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 pleaded that they have purchased the suit property from defendant No. 1 and being bona fide purchasers for consideration their title cannot be affected in the suit property. In short, it can be summarised that the plaintiffs claim themselves to be the grandsons (Dohtas) of Rattan Singh owner, whereas defendant No. 1 Amarjit Kaur claims herself to be grand-daughter (Poti) of Rattan Singh.
3 The above pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
1. Whether Rattan Singh deceased executed a valid Will dated 4.3.1971 in favour of the plaintiffs as claimed? OPP
2. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP
3. Whether Amarjit Kaur, defendant No. 1, is the grand-daughter of Rattan Singh? If so to what effect? OPD
4. Whether the defendants Nos. 4 to 8 are the bona fide purchasers of the suit property for value and without notice? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession claimed? OPP
6. Relief.
4. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Both the Courts below disbelieved the Will dated 4.3.1970 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal.
5. Before 1 deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it will be proper for me to re-produce the relevant reasons given by the first Appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and those reasons are contained in paras Nos. 8 to 12 which read as under:-
"8. On the other hand Shri Balraj Mohan, Advocate counsel for the respondent argued that the Will in question is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the presence of suspicious circumstances would show that the Will was a fabricated document. The learned counsel has contended that deceased Rattan Singh died on 29.11.1975 but the Will did not see the light of the day till 15.2.1982. He has contended that the perusal of the Will woul
