The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper attestation and signatures in proving a Will, as required by Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - CM-153-C-2017 IN RSA-75-2017 AND CM-155-C-2017 IN RSA-76-2017

1. In view of the prayer made in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The persons, named in para 2 of the application, are brought on the record as legal heirs of appellant No.1-Jagdish Singh, who has already been declared civilly dead before the institution of the suit and appellant No.2-Mohinder Kaur, who is stated to have died on 17.02.2015. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.

CM-1855-C-2022 IN RSA-75-2017

2. In view of the prayer made in the application(s), which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The persons, named in para 2 of the application, are brought on the record as legal heirs of Smt. Surinder Kaur, who is impleaded as appellant No.1(iii), 2(iii) and 8 in the appeal(s) and is stated to have died on 25.11.2019. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

CM-1845-C-2022 IN RSA-76-2017

3. In view of the prayer made in the application(s), which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The persons, named in para 2 of the application, are brought on the record as legal heirs of appellant No.7, namely Surinder Kaur, who is stated to have died on 25.11.2019. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

RSA-75-2017 AND RSA-76-2017

4. By this judgment, two Regular Second Appeals bearing No. 75 and 76 of 2017 shall stand disposed of.

5. The judgments, passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, while disposing of the two connected suits, are common. The parties as well as their learned counsel are also common. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that these two appeals can be disposed of by the same judgment.

6. In substance, the dispute is with regard to the succession of the property of Smt. Basant Kaur, widow of Sh. Gian Singh. Sh.Jagjit Singh (the plaintiff) is the son of late Smt. Basant Kaur. He claims to have inherited the property to the exclusion of the other Class-I heirs on the basis of the registered Will dated 30.07.1963.

7. Late Smt. Basant Kaur had two sons, namely Sh.Jagjit Singh and Sh.Jagdish Singh and two daughters, namely Smt.Narinder Kaur and Smt.Jagdeep Kaur. The first suit was filed by Sh. Jagdish Singh, whereas the second suit was filed by Sh.Ranjodh Singh, husband of late Smt. Jagdeep Kaur. It is the case of the defendants that late Smt. Basant Kaur had executed the last registered Will on 02.11.1976. The trial Court decreed the suit by returning the finding that the Will dated 02.11.1976 has been proved by leading secondary evidence. The trial Court, as a matter of fact, found that late Smt. Basant Kaur did execute the registered Will dated 30.07.1963. However, since the last Will is to prevail, therefore, the suit was decided on the basis of the Will dated 02.11.1976.

8. The two appeals were preferred before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, has found that the Will dated 02.11.1976 has neither been produced in evidence nor proved in accordance with Section 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1872 Act'). On 30.03.2022, the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties, were heard at length and the following question was framed:-

'Whether a sub-Registrar performing the functions of a Registrar is entitled to prove the Will in accordance with Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly when neither any attesting witness has been examined nor any person who is well versed with the signatures of the executant and the attesting witness has entered the witness box?"

9. This Court has once again heard the learned counsel for the parties, at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-books and the judgments passed by both the Courts below as well as photocopies of the record.

10. There is no dispute