A testamentary document executed in accordance with the law should not be ignored based on its association with a sale transaction. Documents like agreement to sell, general power of attorney, and Will remain enforceable despite certain judgments.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below.

2. Following substantial questions of law are arisen for consideration of this Court:-

(i) Whether a registered testamentary document duly proved on the file, in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be ignored by the courts on the ground that such testamentary document was part of a “sale transaction” (General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell and Registered Will)?

(ii) Whether after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Limited, 2012 (1) SCC 656, documents like Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will etc. have become unenforceable?

3. Late Shri Mahender Singh purchased a plot No.R-230 in a public auction situated in Model Town, Urban Estate, Ratia in the year 1982 for a sum of Rs.72,000/- out of which Rs.18,000/- was paid being 25% of the total amount as earnest money.

4. The public auction was approved by the competent authority and allotment letter dated 31.3.1982 was issued in favour of late Shri Mahender Singh.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that late Shri Mahender Singh agreed to sell the aforesaid plot for a sum of Rs.4.41 lacs in favour of the plaintiff and on receipt of full sale consideration of Rs.4.41 lacs, Late Shri Mahender Singh executed the agreement to sell, general power of attorney and the testamentary document-Will (registered with the Registrar on 24.2.2003 in his favour. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff did get the aforesaid plot transferred in his favour at any point of time. The plaintiff is further pleaded that possession of the plot was delivered by defendants No.5 and 6 to the plaintiff as general power of attorney of Late Shri Mahender Singh on 29.9.2004. The plaintiff also filed a complaint in the consumer court as attorney of Shri Mahender Singh. The plaintiff also deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- as requisite fee required by defendants No.5 and 6.

6. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendants No.5 and 6 on coming to know that Shri Mahender Singh died on 22.3.2004, asked the plaintiff to get a probate of the 'Will'. However, when it was pointed out that in the State of Punjab, probate is not required, defendants No.5 and 6 insisted that no objection be obtained from legal heirs of Late Shri Mahender Singh, i.e. defendants. However, defendants refused to give no objection, forcing the plaintiff to file the present suit.

7. In the written statement, execution of the agreement to sell and the Will were denied. It was alleged that Late Shri Mahender Singh did not receive the payment of Rs.4.41 lacs and infact the agreement to sell and the Will are forged and fabricated. It was further pleaded by the defendants that general power of attorney was given to the plaintiff only to file a complaint and under that pretext even signatures on the alleged will were obtained.

8. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on the file ignored the agreement to sell on the ground that such agreement to sell does not confer ownership. General power of attorney dated 24.2.2003 was ignored on the ground that after the death of Shri Mahender Singh, general power of attorney has come to an end. The registered Will was ignored on the following grounds:-

(i) Although three documents were executed on 24.2.2003, however, the documents do not refer to each other.

(ii) Late Shri Mahender Singh did not appear to be in sound mind as he had executed three documents, ignoring his natural heirs.

(iii) The Will was registered at 6.15 PM, although the office time was only up to 5.00 PM.

(iv) Presence of the plaintiff Devinder Singh is contradictory as he claims that he was not present at the time of execution of the Will, whereas the attesting witness Niranjan Singh, who has been examined as PW-6, states that Devinder Singh was present.

9. With the