The court emphasized the necessity for trustworthiness in witness testimony regarding the execution of Wills, particularly when suspicious circumstances exist, impacting the appellant's ability to prove the Will's validity.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Pankaj Jain, J.

1. Instant appeal is directed against order dated 22.07.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby petition filed by appellant seeking letter of administration on account of Will dated 26.01.1990 executed by his father Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal stands declined.

2. The appellant propounded unregistered Will dated 26.01.1990 claiming that the same was executed by late Col. Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal and was witnessed by Inderpal Singh Waraich and one Malkiat Singh. In order to prove the Will, Malkiat Singh was examined as PW-2. The petition was contested by respondent No.2. After examining the evidence on record, Lower Court came to conclusion that apart from suspicious circumstances, PW-2 Malkiat Singh-the alleged contesting witness to the Will has not come out with true version. He was found to be untrustworthy. The Court found that even though in his examination-in-chief, Malkiat Singh claimed to have seen the Will having been executed in terms of Section 63 (c) of The Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, but his cross-examination demolished the version spelled out in examination-in-chief.

3. Court enlisted numerous facts including the false testimony of Malkiat Singh regarding death of wife of executant Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal, namely Pritam Kaur. He was also caught testifying in contradiction to his testimony in the earlier lis in Civil Court at Patiala. The same was brought on record as Ex.R-1 and Malkiat Singh was confronted with contents thereof.

4. Mr. Nehra while assailing the impugned judgment submits that the Lower Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of Malkiat Singh merely for the reason that his version with respect to typing of Will was at variance with the one that he uttered before Civil Court at Patiala as recorded in Ex.R-1. He submits that the attesting witness is only required to prove compliance of Section 63 (c). He cannot be held to be the one who knows the contents of the Will. He further submits that the version of Malkiat Singh was recorded almost 23 years after the execution of the Will. Further submits that respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to contest the Will as he himself is a beneficiary under the Will and has admitted the signatures of Col. Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal on the Will.

5. Per contra, Mr. Jain submits that the Court has rightly declined petition seeking letter of administration qua an unregistered Will after the attesting witness was found to be untrustworthy. He further submits that a lis qua one of the properties stands adjudicated vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2015 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala in Civil Suit No.644T/22.01.2009. The said suit was decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties. The said property was also subject matter of Will. Though, as per Will, the same was bequeathed in favour of Mohinder Paul Dhaliwal and Devinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal only, but as per the settlement, all the three brothers, got their share in defiance of the mandate of the Will propounded by the plaintiff. He thus, submits that even by conduct of the parties, they have diluted the Will and have agreed to be governed by natural succession.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

7. Section 276 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 reads as under:-

“276. Petition for probate.—

(1) Application for probate or for letters of administration, with the Will annexed, shall be made by a petition distinctly written in English or in the