Back
1995 Supreme(P&H) 1103
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
Dayal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Atma Singh & Ors. - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 2577 of 1980.
Decided On : 22 September, 1995
For the Appellant :Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with H.L. Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate with R.S. Bal, Advocate.
The propounder of a Will must dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution and satisfy the court that it was duly executed by the testator.
Headnote:
WILL - REVOCATION - LATER WILL - BURDEN OF PROOF - SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES - DISPELLING - EVIDENCE - REGISTRATION - PROBATE - SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, S. 68.
Fact of the Case:
Bela Singh executed a Will in 1958 bequeathing his property to his sons, Atma Singh and the plaintiff, with the condition that they provide maintenance to his predeceased son's widow, Chanan Kaur. In 1963, Bela Singh executed another Will bequeathing his property to defendants 1, 3, and 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of the property based on the 1958 Will, while the defendants claimed ownership based on the 1963 Will.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the 1963 Will was valid and superseded the 1958 Will, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, arguing that the 1963 Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and should be declared invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the 1963 Will was validly executed and revoked the 1958 Will? 2. Whether the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the 1963 Will were dispelled by the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the propounder of a Will to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution and satisfy the court that it was duly executed by the testator. 2. The mere fact that the plaintiff was deprived of inheritance under the 1963 Will does not raise suspicion, as the purpose of a Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. 3. The execution of the 1963 Will at a different place and in the circumstances explained by the defendants, though creating some doubt, does not render it suspicious. 4. The registration of the 1963 Will, the testimony of the scribe and attesting witnesses, and the deposition of the Sub-Registrar provide sufficient evidence to prove its due execution and registration.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the findings of the lower courts were based on evidence and were not unreasonable or perverse. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's arguments and upheld the validity of the 1963 Will.
N.K. Kapoor, J. - This is plaintiffs regular second appeal.
2. The pedigree table of the family is given as under : One Bela Singh was blessed with three sons, namely, Atma Singh, Dayal Singh and Santa Singh. Santa Singh died during his life time and was succeeded by his widow Chanan Kaur defendant No. 2. Atma Singh was blessed with two sons, namely Randhir Singh and Gurcharan Singh, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Dayal Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff and defendant Atma Singh are owners and in possession of the property as detailed in the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 3 and 4 from interfering with their possession or forcibly dispossessing them from the property in dispute. The Plaintiffs claim to the property left by Bela Singh is on the basis of Will dated 28.10.1958.
3. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, Randhir Singh and Gurcharan Singh, sons of Atma Singh filed written statement wherein they admitted the contents of Will dated 28.10.1958 but further alleged that in view of the later will executed by Bela Singh on 31.1.1963 the earlier Will stands revoked and so the plaintiff has no right in the suit property. Smt. Chanan Kaur defendant No. 2 in her statement while admitting the contents of Will dated 29.10.1958 claimed that she is entitled to maintenance from plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1. According to defendant No. 2, her right is even protected in the later will.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :
1. Whether Bela Singh deceased executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, if so, to what effect ? OPP
2. Whether Bela Singh deceased executed a valid Will in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. ? If so to what effect ? OPD (3-4)
3. Relief
5. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff holding that Bela Singh executed a valid Will on 28.10.1958. Under issue No. 2, the Court came to the conclusion that the later will executed by Bela Singh supersedes the earlier Will and so decided this issue in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
6. Before the lower appellate Court the finding recorded by the trial Court in respect of issue No. 2 was challenged. It was argued that the later will dated 31.1.1963 is a forged document and otherwise also surrounded by suspicious circumstances which the propounder have been unable to dispel. Various suspicious circumstances which surround the execution of will dated 31.1.1963 have been simply bypassed by the trial Court for no valid reason. It was further argued that no plausible explanation has been given by the defendants as to why the Will was executed at Dholowal a place away from his permanent residence and got attested by witnesses belong to some other village. Not only this, even the version set up by the defendants that the Will has been executed at the clinic of the doctor alleged to be attending to Bela Singh stands disproved in view of the sworn testimony of Dr. Sansar Singh. Besides it, no plausible explanation has been given in the later will be deprived the plaintiff of his right to inherit the property in normal course of succession. The lower appellate Court examined all these objections threadbare but found no ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Resultantly, the appeal too was dismissed.
7. Before me, the learned counsel for the appellant has once again argued that suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will having not been dispelled by the defendants by leading cogent evidence the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is vitiated on this ground also. According to the counsel, it is for the propounders to dispel the suspicious circumstances and unless the same was dispelled such a document even when registered does not put it at a higher pedestal. The following suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will have been highlighted; (i) the Wil
