The Court upheld that factual findings by lower courts could only be interfered with for substantial legal errors, emphasizing strict adherence to evidence standards in ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

1. Plaintiffs are in appeal.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are exclusive owners in possession of the agricultural land as detailed out in the head-note of the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that plaintiffs and the defendant are sons of Jawahara. Their father executed Will dated 22.05.1967 in favour of the plaintiffs. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendants to the extent of 1/4^th share on 28.08.1970, which was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father Jawahara used to cultivate the suit land, measuring 454 bighas and 19 biswas. During the life-time of Jawahara, defendant separated himself and was given 117 bighas and 07biswas of land. On 22.05.1967, Jawahara executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs. Jawahara died in the year 1969 and on the basis of the Will, plaintiffs inherited the suit land. Defendant being Lambardar of village got mutation No.159 entered in his favour. As per which, the plaintiffs as well as the defendant succeeded to the equal share in the estate left by Jawahara.

3. Suit was contested by the defendant, who claimed that he is in possession of specific killa numbers and is in possession of suit land to the extent of 1/4^th share. Execution of Will as propounded by the plaintiffs was denied. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether deceased Jawahara executed a valid will in favour of plaintiffs on 22.05.67 , if so, its effect? OPD

3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fees? OPD

8. Whether the plaint has not been signed in accordance with law? OPD

9. Whether the suit is barred provisions of Section 281(a) of Income Tax Act? OPD

10. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD

11. Relief. ”

4. The trial Court upheld the Will in favour of the plaintiffs and decided issue No.2 in their favour and decreed the suit.

5. In Appeal preferred by the defendant, lower Appellate Court reversed finding on issue No.2, holding that neither scribe nor the attesting witness of the Will apart from Palu Singh, headman of village have been examined.

6. Lower Appellate Court disbelieved Palu Singh, holding that he was living in a village situated at a distance of more than 40 kms away from the village of the parties and was a stranger to the family. Admittedly, Jawahara on the day he is alleged to have executed Will was about 80 years whereas Palu Singh (PW-1) in his testimony stated that the testator was aged about 40-50-60 years. The Will is an unregistered document but Palu Singh in his testimony claims that the Will was produced before the Tehsildar at about 12.00 noon and the same was read over by the Tehsildar, which all shows that Palu Singh was not present at the time Will was executed. The executant-Jawahara died in the year 1969 i.e. more than 1 year after the execution of the Will yet no effort was made to get the same registered. For 17 long years after Jawahara died in the year 1969, the Will never saw the light of the day. Mutation was sanctioned on the date of Jawahara mutating his estate equally amongst his sons on 28.08.1970 yet the plaintiffs despite having got numerous opportunities opted not to produce the Will for 17 long years.

7. Mr. Mani Ram Verma, counsel for the appellants, is not in a position to dispute