The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the due execution of a Will, examine attesting witnesses, dispel suspicious circumstances, and emphasize the significance of registration in establishing the genuineness of the Will.

SABINA, J. - The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in joint possession of the suit land to the extent of half share.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the suit land measuring 203 kanals 6 marlas was jointly owned and possessed by Thakar Singh and Narinjan Singh in equal shares. Thakar Singh had died on 12.5.1986. The plaintiff being widow of Thakar Singh had inherited half share out of the suit property belonging to Thakar Singh. Defendants No.1 and 2 had got a mutation sanctioned in their favour qua inheritance of Thakar Singh. The said mutation was illegal and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

3. Defendants No.1 and 2, in their written statement, averred that Thakar Singh had died on 12.5.1986. It was denied that the plaintiff was the `widow of Thakar Singh. It was averred that the plaintiff had got married with Thakar Singh but had left his company as relations between them had become strained. Thereafter, the plaintiff had got married with someone else. Thakar Singh had executed a registered Will in favour of the answering defendants on 16.9.1983.

4. Defendant No.4-bank, in its written statement, averred that Narinjan Singh-defendant No.3 had mortgaged the suit land with the bank for purchase of a tractor on 9.9.1983 vide registered mortgage deed. The bank had every right to realise its debt as per law.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether Gurdip Kaur plaintiff is the widow of Thakar Singh deceased, if so, its effect? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is owner in joint possession of = share of the disputed land ? OPP

3. Whether on 16.9.83 Thakar Singh deceased executed a valid Will in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 ? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff being widow of Thakar Singh deceased is entitled to = share in the disputed property? OPP

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ? OPP

6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD

7. Relief.”

6. The Sub Judge, Ist Class, vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.1994 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.1 to 3 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.1997. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Will Ex.D-1 was not a genuine document as no mention had been made in the Will qua the plaintiff. The plaintiff was wife of the executant and in normal circumstances, the executant would have made some provision for his wife in the Will. In support of her arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Chhoti and others AIR 1990 SC 396, wherein it was held as under:-

“The Will in the present case, constituting the plaintiff as a sole legatee with no right whatever to the testator's wife seems to be un-natural. It casts a serious doubt on genuineness of the Will.”

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the executant had died issueless and in these circumstances, it was natural for him to have executed the Will in favour of his nephews. The suit land was agricultural land and it is the normal tendency of the agriculturist to execute the Will in favour 4 of the male heirs. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Savithri and others vs. Karthyayani Amma and others 2007 (4) CCC 801, wherein it was held as under:-

“12. Submission of the learned counsel that if both Krishnan Nair and Sankaran Nair were to bequeath their entire right, title and interest in the properties in favour of the respondents herein, by way of family arrangement or otherwise, no deed of partition was required to be executed, cannot be accepted as thereby they would have lost their interest in the property during their life time. They evidently