The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will, failing which the Will may be rejected.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.1-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022 passed by the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the plaintiffrespondent No.1 has been accepted and his suit has been decreed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent No.1 filed the present suit for declaration and joint possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction for declaring the alleged Will dated 13.01.1999 bearing Vasika No.143/3 and Mutation No.8067 and all subsequent revenue entries as illegal, null and void, ineffective and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and defendantrespondent No.2. It was averred in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff respondent No.1 and defendant-respondent No.2 was the owner of land measuring 15 kanals 16 marlas detailed as under :

(i) Land measuring 8K-5M being % share out of total land measuring 33K-0M total kittas 5 comprised in khewat no.656/604 min, khatoni no.876-877.

(ii) Land measuring 2K-0M being % share out of total land measuring 8K-0M kittas 1 comprised in khewat no.658/605, khatoni no.880.

(iii) Land measuring 2K-0M being % share out of total land measuring 8K-0M kittas 1 comprised in khewat no.659/606, khatoni no.881

(iv) Land measuring 3K-10M being 280/3392 share out of total land measuring 42K-8M kittas 6 comprised in khewat no.121/105, khatoni no.159

(v) Land measuring 0K-1M being 7/28 share out of total land measuring 0K-7M kitta 1 comprised in khewat no.122/106 khatoni no.160.

3. It was further averred that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and his father, deceased Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana, were residing in Village Ballah in 1995 and after 1995 they left Village Ballah and started residing together at Panipat. The suit land was being given on rent/theka through the defendant No.1-appellant since the defendant No.1-appellant was the cousin brother of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and nephew of the deceased Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana. It was further averred that when the plaintiff-respondent No.1 demanded the rent/theka amount, the defendant No.1-appellant postponed the same and eventually stated that he had become absolute owner of the suit land in the year 2001 and that he had inherited the said land from Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana by way of a registered Will. It was averred in the plaint that the deceased Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana was an illiterate person and could not read and understand the contents of any document and further that at the time of the alleged execution of the Will, Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana was not capable of executing and getting registered any document as per his free will since he was not in a proper mental state. It was further averred that there has been a deviation from the natural line of succession disinheriting the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and defendant-respondent No.2 herein. It was further averred that Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana at the time of his death was residing with the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and often visited Village Ballah and the defendant No.1-appellant taking advantage of the illiteracy and trust of the deceased Sajjan Singh @ Sajjana got executed the Will. It was further averred that the Will though executed on 15.01.1999 was registered on 13.01.1999. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1-appellant who claimed to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of the Will.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration declaring the Will dated 13.1.1999 bearing no.143/3 and mutation no.8067 and subsequent revenue entries as null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and performa defendant no.2 along with a decree of joint possession by declaring plaintiff and performa defendant as joint owner in possession of suit land ? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is decided in affirmative whether plaintiff is entitled