The main legal point established in the judgment is that a testament executed and proved in accordance with the law should not be ignored based on conjectures and surmises.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Defendant-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

2. In the considered view of this Court, question of law which arises for consideration is:-

"Whether judgments passed by the Courts below are based upon conjectures and surmises while discarding the testament?"

3. Some facts are required to be noticed. Family of Sh. H.L. Seth consisted of his wife (Vidya Wati) and four daughters (Sudarshana Narang, Smt. Nirmal, Smt. Veena Sondhi and Meenakshi Madan @ Chanderbala).

4. Vidya Wati (wife) died on 17.12.1989 whereas Smt. Nirmal died issueless in the year 1981 and Veena Sondhi died on 10.09.1994.

5. Sh. H.L. Seth, the testator, retired from Haryana State Electricity Board and thereafter he started working as Personal Assistant to the Managing Director of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Ltd., Industrial Area Phase -I, Chandigarh where he continued to work till 31.03.1995.

6. Late Sh. H.L. Seth executed a testament dated 26.01.1995 bequeathing his property in favour of his daughter Meenakshi Madan @ Chander Bala. The testament is attested by two witnesses; one Sudarshana Kumari, one of the daughter and Sh. R.R. Kapoor (a friend of late Sh. H.L. Seth).

7. Dispute is about the validity of the aforesaid testament.

8. Present suit was filed by Amit Sondhi and Neha Sondhi, children of late Smt. Veena Sondhi through their father for declaration that the testament executed by Sh. H.L. Seth be declared illegal, null and void and direction be given to hand over possession of House No.1067, Sector- 19B, Chandigarh. It may be noted that there were various other Fix Deposits, Bank Accounts, amount lying in National Saving Scheme and employees Provident Fund. Arrangement with regard to the same was made under the Will.

9. Both the attesting witnesses namely Sudarshan Kumari as well as Sh. R.R. Kapoor have appeared in evidence and have deposed in support of the Will of the testament dated 26.01.1995.

10 . Both the Courts have held that the testament is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The suspicious circumstances as noticed by the Courts below and pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents are as under:-

(i) The Will is scribed on three pages and only last page has been signed by the testator and the attesting witnesses.

(ii) Page numbering on the Will is discrepant as after page Nos.1 and 2, page No.7 has been mentioned on the top.

(iii) In the date of the execution of the Testament on page 3, M 26th'' is not in alignment with the remaining type written sentence.

(iv) Sudarshna Kumari when appeared in evidence has stated that Will is in the hand writing of Sh. H.L. Seth whereas it is typed. She further states that there were three persons in the room when Will was signed.

(v) On the other hand, Sh. R.R. Kapoor, the other witness has stated that Will is typed and there were four persons in the room including husband of Sudarshna.

(vi) Names of two other daughters, who had died, have not been mentioned in the Will. The date written by Sh. R.R. Kapoor, the attesting witness, along with his signature is with a different pen than his signatures. He has also stated that he had carried a correction by adding word 'up' which is not visible.

(vii) Details of one bank account has not been mentioned.

11. It may be noted that Sudarshna Narang, the daughter, who would have got ^rd share in the property in the absence of Testament, is attesting witness of the testament. She is married and is residing in Faridabad approximately 270 kilometers from Chandigarh. She has stated that she was called by her father on telephone on 24.01.1995 and she along with her husband came to Chandigarh. She admits due execution of the testament. She is one witness, who can be considered most reliable by the Court being natural heir of Sh. H.L. Seth entitled to succeed to ^rd share in the property.

12. Now let us deal with the suspicious circumstances as noticed