Proving the execution of a Will does not establish its validity if it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The beneficiary must satisfy the Court that there are no suspicious circumstances or explain them.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. - Present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgments and decrees dated 17.04.2015 and 01.08.2019 passed by the Courts below; whereby a suit for declaration claiming ownership to the extent of half share qua the property in dispute has been decreed in favour of respondent/ plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that in the present case the property left by deceased Shamsher Singh has become an apple of discord between his mother i.e. appellant/ defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') and his widow i.e. respondent. As per the case set up in the plaint, leaving behind the suit property Shamsher Singh unfortunately died intestate on 28.05.2009 and respondent as well as the appellant as his Class I legal heirs. The respondent further submits that mutation No.383 dated 26.11.2019 was entered into in the name of both the Class I legal heirs though later impugned in appeal at the instance of present appellant having set up a registered Will dated 18.05.2009 in her favour. As per the plaint, the Will dated 18.05.2009 happens to be a forged and fabricated document being surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Based on the aforesaid facts, the respondent sought declaration claiming half share in the property left by her husband Shamsher Singh on the basis of natural succession with a further prayer for grant of joint possession as well as for grant of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit property, in any manner, besides having challenged the validity of Will dated 18.05.2009 registered on 19.05.2009 being illegal, forged and fabricated document.

3. In response, the appellant contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. Having admitted the factum of marriage between the respondent and Shamsher Singh, the primary thrust was on the validity of Will dated 18.05.2009. The learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 17.05.2015 though accepted the execution of the Will in question, however, discarded the same being based on suspicious circumstances, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of respondent to the extent of half share in the suit property. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the appellant filed first appeal which again met the same fate and was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2019.

4. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned Senior Counsel-Mr. Amit Jhanji appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the valid execution of Will has been duly proved on record in accordance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for short 1872 Act' read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for short 1925 Act'. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Will in question dated 18.05.2009 is a registered document, having been registered on 19.05.2009 and has been validly proved on record through the statements of the appellant, the attesting witnesses, the scribe as well as the witness from the office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana. He further submits that the respondents has not been able to impeach the consistency of the testimony of all the aforesaid witnesses who have appeared as DW1, and DW5 in order to prove the execution of Will in question. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the absence of any evidence on record that the testator was not of sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will, the Courts below have gone wrong while discarding the Will based on suspicious circumstances which were not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the Will in questi