Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 2158
2009 (3) RCR(Civ) 761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Amar Singh -Appellant
Versus
Lajya Devi and others -Respondents
RSA No. 1310 of 1984
Decided on: 19.12.2008
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. D.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the due execution of a Will, dispelling any legitimate doubt to the satisfaction of the court, and removing suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will's execution.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63, Section 68 - The court discussed the formalities required for the execution and attestation of unprivileged Wills under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It also considered the mode of proof of a Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The court emphasized the responsibility to prove the due execution of a Will and the burden on the propounder to dispel any legitimate doubt to the satisfaction of the court. The court also highlighted the need to remove any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and the importance of the conscious of the court in determining the validity of a Will.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of land bequeathed to him by a Will. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court set aside the judgment, leading to the plaintiff's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and could not be relied upon. It upheld the lower appellate court's decision, emphasizing that the lower court's findings were not erroneous and should not be disturbed in the second appeal.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity and genuineness of the Will dated 14.6.1981. The court also considered the admission of the execution of the Will by certain defendants and the exclusion of natural heirs without explanation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove the due execution of a Will and to dispel any legitimate doubt to the satisfaction of the court. It highlighted the importance of removing suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and the conscious of the court in determining the validity of a Will.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were upheld.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. This regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1984 passed by the first appellate court whereby that of the trial court dated 24.9.1983 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the case are that plaintiff Amar Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 46 kanals 8 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kapahat, Tehsil and District Hoshiapur (for short the “suit land”) on the averments that his father-in-law, Munshi Ram, a retired Patwari, was the owner of 856 kanals 15 marlas of land, out of which he bequeathed the suit land in his favour by executing a Will dated 14.6.1981 for the services rendered by him and his wife Raksha Devi, defendant No.4, to said Munshi Ram and the remaining land to all of his four daughters. Munshi Ram died on 19.11.1981 leaving behind four married daughters. It was pleaded that the plaintiff got the mutation entered on the basis of the Will dated 14.6.1981 which was contested by the other heirs and the revenue authorities disbelieving the Will sanctioned the mutation in favour of all the heirs on the basis of natural succession, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit.
3. Upon notice, defendants No.1, 3 and 4 admitted the execution of the Will by Munshi Ram in favour of the plaintiff whereas defendant No.2, one of the daughters of Munshi Ram, contested the same raising a plea that not only the plaintiff and his wife, others had also been serving Munshi Ram. It was pleaded that the Will set-up by the plaintiff was forged, false and invalid as Munshi Ram was of unsound mind for about a year before his death. According to her, the plaintiff was having certain documents regarding civil litigation pending between one Tarlok Chand and her father Munshi Ram, and the Will in question had been fabricated on one of such papers with the connivance of the attesting witnesses and the same was shrouded by suspicious circumstances.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:-
“1. Whether deceased Munshi Ram executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief.”
5. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the deceased Munshi Ram had executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiff. Under issue No.2, the trial court held the plaintiff entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.1983 decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding him entitled to the decree for declaration that he was the owner in possession of the suit land with a perpetual injunction against the defendant not to interfere in his possession. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.2, approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.1984 reversed the findings of the trial court on issue No.1 holding that the Will in question had not been proved. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff.
6. Mr. Jaswal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal raises the substantial questions of law and made the following submissions. According to him,
a) The lower appellate court had taken the suspicious circumstances on assumption and presumption and the findings recorded by the lower appellate court are legally unsustainable as it had not discussed or touched the grounds on which the trial court had recorded the Will, Ex.P1, to be genuine;
7. He relied upon
