Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Bant Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
Didar Singh and others - Respondents
RSA No.433 of 2007 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of genuineness of a registered Will and the requirement to honor the testator's wish, unless there are strong suspicious circumstances creating doubt about its genuineness.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the context of a property dispute involving a registered Will and the rights of the natural heirs. The court emphasized the presumption of genuineness of a registered Will and the requirement to honor the testator's wish unless there are strong suspicious circumstances creating doubt about its genuineness. The court also clarified the evidentiary requirements for proving a Will and highlighted the importance of fulfilling the statutory provisions for registration.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a property at village Ladda, with the plaintiffs claiming inheritance based on natural succession and the defendants relying on a registered Will in their favor. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the Will, while the first appellate court ignored the Will due to suspicious circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first appellate court erred in ignoring the registered Will based on weak grounds and reinstated the judgment of the trial court, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the registered Will, the evidentiary requirements for proving a Will, and the rights of natural heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of genuineness of a registered Will and the need to honor the testator's wish, highlighted the evidentiary requirements for proving a Will, and clarified the importance of fulfilling statutory provisions for registration.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellants was accepted, and the judgment passed by the trial court was restored, resulting in the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
C.M.No.9929-C-2017
1. Prayer in this application is to dispose of the appeal qua appellant no.2-Karam Singh in terms of the compromise, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure A-1.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that all the parties to the compromise have signed. The deed of compromise has been placed on record, which is taken on record as mark 'C'.
3. Counsel for the parties are present in the Court and reiterate the terms of the settlement as arrived at between the parties.
4. In view thereof, the appeal with respect to Karam Singh, appellant no.2, shall stands disposed of in terms of a deed of compromise, which has been marked as 'C'. The deed of compromise dated 24.07.2017 mark 'C' shall form part of the decree.
5. Application is for permission to lead additional evidence.
6. Reply to the application filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.
7. The aforesaid application shall be discussed while dealing with the main case.
MAIN
In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise in the present case:-
(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
(ii) Whether a registered Will proved to have been executed by the testator, can be ignored by the Court on the basis of suspicious circumstances which are not supported by any evidence?
8. The appeal is surviving only on behalf of Bant Singh, who was defendant no.1 in the suit.
9. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the estate of Niranjan Singh situated in the village Ladda.
10. Niranjan Singh was having four sons and one daughter. He died on 04.06.2000. Plaintiffs, who are children and grand children of Niranjan Singh filed a suit for declaration claiming that land at village Ladda measuring 40 Bighas and 5 Biswas is inherited by them equally as per natural succession.
11. On the other hand, defendants pleaded that property at village Ladda has been bequeathed in their favour under a “Will” (registered)-a testamentary document dated 22.08.1994.
12. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file, dismissed the suit and held that the Will stands proved on the file. However, learned first appellate Court held that the registered Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, the Will is liable to be ignored and the property at village Ladda would be inherited by all the natural heirs in accordance with Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The reasons assigned by the learned first appellate Court for ignoring the Will are as under:-
(i) There is no evidence that the relations between the plaintiffs and late Sh. Niranjan Singh were strained;
(ii) the attesting witness i.e. Surjit Singh could not identify his thumb impression on the Will while appearing in the Court;
(iii) Second attesting witness who is alive has not been examined;
(iv) No evidence has been led to prove registration of the Will;
(v) Testator on the date of execution of the Will was approximately 70 years old and, therefore, assumed to be of weak mind;
(vi) Surjit Singh, the attesting witness who has been examined as DW2, had stated in the evidence before the revenue authorities that the Will was in favour of Didar Singh, whereas “Will” in fact was in favour of Bant Singh and Karam Singh.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and the record of the case.
14. A registered Will executed by the testator is a solemn document. The Courts are required to make an attempt to give effect to the wish of the testator, who is no more in the world. A registered document has presumption of genuineness. The Courts are not justified in ignoring the registered “Will”-a testamentary document unless there are strong suspicious circumstances which create doubt in the mind of a reasonable person about its genuineness.
15. Now let us deal
