The court reaffirmed that a Will must be upheld unless substantial evidence proves it was executed under suspicious circumstances, emphasizing the importance of direct evidence over expert opinions.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

In this regular second appeal, defendant No. 1 Sh. Bogh Singh through his legal representatives assails the correctness of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing plaintiff's suit for grant of decree of possession. In substance, the dispute is with regard to inheritance of the property left behind by Sh. Jangir Singh son of Sh. Prem Singh on the basis of Will dated 10.06.1979 between his class-I heirs. Family tree of the parties is as under:-

Prem Singh

Jangir Singh

Karnail Singh

(Plaintiff No.1)

Gurdev Singh

(Plaintiff No.2)

Bogh Singh

(Def. No.1)

Harnek Singh

(Def. No.2)

Hardev Singh

(Def. No.3)

Mukhtiar Singh

(Def. No.5)

Nand Kaur (Widow)

Chotto Singh (Def. No.5)

2. Sh. Jangir Singh died on 20.06.1979. Sh. Karnail Singh and Sh. Gurdev Singh filed a suit for possession on 11.09.1986, claiming share in the property on the basis of natural succession. It was claimed that Sh. Jangir Singh did not execute any valid Will and the Will propounded by the defendant has been forged with the connivance of the witnesses. Sh. Bogh Singh-defendant No. 1 has also taken possession of the land forcibly. Defendant No.5 namely Smt. Choto daughter of Sh. Jangir Singh did not contest the suit. Defendant No. 1 to 3 namely Sh. Bogh Singh, Sh. Harnek Singh and Sh. Hardev Singh sons of Sh. Jangir Singh filed a written statement and submitted that Sh. Jangir Singh did execute the Will dated 10.06.1979 in favour of Sh. Bogh Singh. All the sons of Sh. Jangir Singh got their respective land and the suit land fell to the share to the share of defendant No.4 Smt. Nand Kaur in partition and she is the owner in possession of the same. Sh. Jangir Singh did not execute any Will.

3. In oral evidence, the plaintiffs examined PW-1 Sh. Karnail Singh (plaintiff No. 1) and PW-2 Sh. Varinder Bhushan Bhatnagar, handwriting and fingerprint expert.

4. On the other hand, Sh. Bogh Singh got recorded his statement as DW-1. Both the attesting witnesses namely DW-2 Sh. Kartar Singh and Sh. Prithi Singh were also examined. Defendant No.4 examined DW-4 Sh. Atul Singla, handwriting and fingerprint expert.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit, which has been upheld in appeal.

6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along with the requisitioned record of the Courts below.

7. The learned counsel representing the appellant while referring to the evidence produced on record submits that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit particularly when the execution of the Will was proved by examining both the attesting witnesses.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents contends that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below does not require any interference.

9. Upon analyses of the judgments passed by both the Courts below, it is evident that the following reasons have been given by the Courts to discard the Will:-

1. The Will was produced in the Court for the first time in the year 1988.

2. The defendant Sh. Bogh Singh did not examined any handwriting and fingerprint expert.

3. Both the attesting witness did not see the testator appending his thumb inpressions.

4. The testator died within a period of 10 days from the date of alleged execution of the Will.

5. The testator was not able to walk.

6. The word 'Aitwar' has been interpolated to make it 'war'.

7. The suit land is ancestral.

8. The Will has been scribed on a paper with pre-existing thumb impression.

9. The attesting witnesses are at variance with respect to execution of the Will.

10. The scribe's family member have not been examined to prove his signatures.

10. Before analysing the correctness of the reasons assigned by the Courts below, a brief reference to the oral and documentary evidence is necessary.

11. Sh. Karnail Singh-plaintiff No. 1 while appearing in evidence claims that Sh. Jangir Singh used to reside with them. He