The burden of proof in establishing the execution of a Will, the requirement to prove suspicious circumstances, and the difficulty in proving forgery were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Jaishree Thakur, J.

1. This appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 passed by the lower court, dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff (henceforth called as 'the appellant') as well as judgment and decree dated 19.08.2017 passed by the first Appellate Court whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Air Vice Marshal Harjinder Singh was married to Mrs. Beant Kaur. From this wedlock, no child was born and they adopted appellant as their son. It was stated that Harjinder Singh died on 06.09.1971 and he was survived by the appellant and Beant Kaur. Air Vice Marshal Harjinder Singh acquired two immovable properties, i.e. House No.27, Sector 3A, Chandigarh and Industrial Plot No.30, Phase-I, Chandigarh. It was submitted that House No.27 (supra) being ancestral house was managed by Karta i.e. AVM Harjinder Singh. However in the Industrial plot, apart from Air Vice Marshal Harjinder Singh and Mrs Beant Kaur, Smt. Satwant Kaur has been shown as owner in the Industrial Plot to the extent of 30%, even though she had not contributed a single penny towards acquiring the same. Real sister of his mother, Satwant Kaur being destitute and abandoned had sought protection and help, who was allowed to stay in the house. Proper care was taken of her by giving her proper food etc. Satwant Kaur was aged about 86 years and with the passage of time, she suffered from various ailments including allergy, eczema, osteoprosis, breast cancer. It was averred that Satwant Kaur had four brothers and six sisters and 30 nephews and nieces. It was alleged that land grabbers took her away when she was sick and old with an ulterior motive to take advantage of her ill health. On 08.11.2004, cousin of the respondent-defendant (henceforth called as 'the respondent') took away Satwant Kaur forcibly from the house of the appellant and a complaint in this regard was given by the appellant to the police officials. On 07.03.2006, Satwant Kaur died allegedly after executing Will dated 16.09.2005, in which she left her share in the Industrial Plot to her nephew, the respondent. It was claimed that this Will was forged and fabricated in connivance with Vidyasagar and Satpal Singh (witnesses to Will). It was further averred that the appellant was looking after Satwant Kaur and there was no occasion for her to execute Will in favour of the respondent, who had been residing in Canada since 30 years. On the basis of these facts, the appellant had prayed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

3. In his written statement, the contesting respondent took preliminary objections as to maintainability of the suit, cause of action, concealment of facts. While replying on merits, the respondent has denied that the appellant is adopted son of Beant Kaur (sic.) and Harjinder Singh. It was alleged that the appellant committed atrocities upon Beant Kaur and Satwant Kaur, who were forced to leave their residential house in Sector 3- A Chandigarh. The respondent got an FIR registered against the appellant. Rest of the averments of the plaint were controverted.

4. In written statement filed by defendant No.2 the Chandigarh Administration, it has been submitted that as per their record, the appellant is owner of Industrial plot qua 1/6th share and Beant Kaur is owner qua 1/3rd share. With regard to the house, it has been stated that 50% share lies in the name of Satwant Kaur and Beant Kaur vide transfer letter dated 31.03.1976.

5. Replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led by both the parties. On appreciating the evidence, the lower court dismissed the suit of the appellant, against which the appellant filed an appeal, which too dismissed by the first Appellate Court. Now the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below have been challenged in this regular second appeal.

6. Mr. Vijay Kr. Jindal, lear