The validity of a Will and the reasons for excluding heirs are subjective and not subject to court interference unless surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - While assailing the findings of the First Appellate Court, the defendants have come up in appeal.

2. The dispute is with regard to the succession of the property left behind by late Sh. Bhagat Singh, who died unmarried and issueless. A small pedigree table has been prepared in order to understand the inter-se relationship between the parties:-

3. Sh. Charan Singh, the plaintiff, filed a suit claiming decree of declaration to the effect that he is an exclusive owner of the property left behind by late Sh. Bhagat Singh on the basis of a Will dated 12.12.1961.

4. The defendants contested the suit while asserting that there does not exist any Will dated 12.12.1961, however, late Sh. Bhagat Singh did execute a registered Will on 22.05.1981, in favour of Sh. Mohinder Singh, Sh. Mehanga Singh, and Sh. Piara Singh.

5. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the Will dated 12.12.1961 but the Will dated 22.05.1981 has been proved. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. It may be noted here that no attesting witness of the Will dated 12.12.1961, was examined by the plaintiff.

6. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been reversed by the First Appellate Court while recording the following reasons:-

(1) The testator did not recite any reason for excluding the natural preferential heirs.

(2) No reason has been assigned for excluding Sh. Didar Singh son of Sh. Basant Singh.

(3) There is no reference to the previous Will dated 12.12.1961 and why the testator changed his mind.

(4) There is no evidence that the attesting witnesses were in confidence of the testator.

(5) In a criminal case against Sh. Mohinder Singh, Sh. Dev Raj appeared as a defence witness in order to help the accused.

(6) There is evidence that the relationship between late Sh. Bhagat Singh and Sh. Dev Raj was strained.

(7) The second attesting witness, namely, Sh. Joginder Singh is from another village and there is no evidence that he was in confidence of the testator, hence, late Sh. Bhagat Singh (the testator) is not expected to request Sh. Joginder Singh for execution of the Will.

(8) In the Will dated 12.12.1961, late Sh. Bhagat Singh gave his age as 60 years, whereas in the Will dated 22.05.1981, he has disclosed his age to be 70, whereas, in fact, he should be 81 years of age, at the time of execution of the later Will.

9. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book and the record which was requisitioned.

10. In the considered view of the Court, the most important document is the registered Will Ex.D1, dated 22.05.1981. It is a hand written Will in Gurumukhi Script (Punjabi). At the end of the page, late Sh. Bhagat Singh has thumb marked the Will. Both the attesting witnesses Sh. Dev Raj (DW1) and Sh. Joginder Singh (DW3) have signed the Will in Punjabi. The testator appeared before the Registrar at the time of registration. He has thumb marked on the endorsement of the sub-Registrar at two different places. One thumb impression is marked at the time of presentation of the Will for registration and the second is marked at the time of its registration. There is no evidence to prove that late Sh. Bhagat Singh never put the afore-mentioned thumb impressions.

11. In order to prove the Will, the defendants have examined DW1-Sh. Des Raj, the attesting witness of the Will. He is the Sarpanch of the same village, where late Sh. Bhagat Singh used to reside.

12. The second attesting witness is Sh. Joginder Singh, who has been examined as DW3. He is the resident of another village. The defendants have also examined Sh. Sukhdev Raj, professional scribe of the Will.

13. Both the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe have proved the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

14. From a bare perusal of the pedigree table, it is evident that late Sh. B