The validity of a Will under the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act, and the compliance requirements under the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Plaintiffs-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

2. Dispute in the present case is with respect to the estate of Harnam Singh, who is alleged to have executed a registered Will dated 01.03.1967 in favour of grand son of the brother Albel Singh, who were minors at that time as he did not have any child. Harnam Singh died issueless without leaving any Class-I heirs on 15.07.1968. Plaintiffs are daughters of Biro, sister of Harnam Singh.

3. Will has been proved by examination of Harchand Singh, Nambardar as DW8, attesting witness. Naib Tehsildar who registered the Will has also been examined. Son of the scribe has been examined as PW10, whereas Karnail Singh Chhajla, Advocate, who was witness of the registration of the Will was examined as DW16.

4. Learned trial court held that the Will is surrounded by following suspicious circumstances :-

(i) The attesting witnesses were residents of different village than executant Harnam Singh;

(ii) The attesting witnesses were not known to Harnam Singh;

(iii) The Will was propounded by the defendants after a period of 8 years of the death of Harnam Singh;

(iv) Another attesting witness Nand Singh was not produced before the Sub-Registrar;

(v) No reason has been given to disinherit sister Biro;

(vi) The attesting witness could not correctly tell the age of the testator;

(vii) The registration of the Will is perfunctory.

5. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by the court after re-appreciation of the evidence.

6. This court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and the record.

7. Counsel for the appellants has proposed the following substantial questions of law :-

1. Whether the Will Ex.DX allegedly executed by Harnam Singh was valid in the eyes of law?

2. Whether the Will Ex.DX is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, which have not been explained by the propounder of the Will, i.e. the defendant-respondents and thus the same is liable to be rejected?

3. Whether the lower Appellate Court could reverse the well-considered judgment and decree of the Trial Court, without meeting with all the reasons given by it for rejecting the Will, Ex.DX?

4. Whether the judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court is perverse and suffers from errors patent on the record?

SUBMISSIONS

8. Learned counsel for the appellants while addressing arguments has submitted that the Will is not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that the learned trial court had given six reasons while holding that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances which have not been reversed by the first appellate court. As per Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act any person acquiring interest in the immovable property by inheritance, purchase, mortgage or otherwise, is required to report his acquisition of the right to the Patwari of the estate. He submitted that no report was submitted by the defendants as required within the time prescribed, therefore, the Will is doubtful. Learned counsel has further referred to the provisions of Section 39 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act which provides that if any person neglects to make a report required by Section 34 within 3 months from the date of his acquisition of a right referred to in that section shall be liable, at the discretion of a Collector, to a fine not exceeding five times of the amount of fee which would have been payable according to the scale fixed. He further submitted that Nand Singh, another attesting witness, has not supported execution and attestation of the Will. He further drew attention of the court to the alternative plea of the defendants wherein they claimed that they have become owners by way of adverse posses