A Will must be validated despite surrounding suspicious circumstances; the burden of proof lies on the propounder to dispel doubts regarding its execution and legitimacy.

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff against a common judgment and decree dated 30.03.2001, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana; whereby the appeal filed by respondents-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994, passed by the trial Court, decreeing the suit of appellant-plaintiff for declaration that he is the only legal and natural heir of Naranjan Singh and thus, entitled to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity, group insurance scheme etc. of Naranjan Singh; had been allowed and the cross objections filed by the appellant-plaintiff were dismissed and consequently, the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, as noticed above; on the plea that Naranjan Singh son of Sohan Singh was his real uncle, who died on 18.07.1985 at village Nothe-Khazooran, Tehsil Jagraon. It is the pleaded case of the appellant-plaintiff that he was adopted by Naranjan Singh, as his son and the ceremony of adoption was performed in the presence of near relations. It was averred that after the adoption, Naranjan Singh had been treating appellant-plaintiff as his son and similarly appellant-plaintiff was treating said Naranjan Singh as his father. It was further averred that Naranjan Singh never married during his lifetime and he had been living with the appellant-plaintiff, in the house of Pritam Singh (natural father of appellant-plaintiff). It was yet further pleaded that in lieu of the services rendered by appellant-plaintiff to abovesaid Naranjan Singh, said Naranjan Singh executed a Will dated 04.06.1985 whereunder appellant-plaintiff was appointed as a sole legatee. Appellant-plaintiff stated that the respondent-defendant No. 1 claimed herself to be the widow of Naranjan Singh and respondents-defendants No. 2 to 5 claimed themselves to be children of Naranjan Singh, whereas appellant- plaintiff claimed that Naranjan Singh never married during his lifetime. According to the appellant-plaintiff, he approached the respondents-defendants several times to admit his claim qua gratuity etc. of Naranjan Singh, however, of no avail. On the basis of the aforesaid pleas, the suit was filed.

3. Upon notice, respondents-defendants appeared and filed their written statement wherein certain preliminary objections were taken as regards, maintainability of the suit, locus-standi of the appellant-plaintiff to file the suit, non-joinder of Northern Railway as a necessary party etc. On merits, the respondents-defendants denied that Naranjan Singh ever adopted the appellant-plaintiff as his son and it was further denied that Naranjan Singh ever treated the appellant-plaintiff as his son. It was specifically denied that Naranjan Singh had made any Will as propounded by appellant-plaintiff. It was stated that the said Will is a forged and fabricated document. It was claimed by respondents-defendants that Naranjan Singh married Gurdial Kaur (respondent-defendant No. 1) and out of this wedlock, respondents-defendants No. 2 to 5 were born. It was, therefore, stated that there was no question of appellant-plaintiff being adopted by Naranjan Singh. It was claimed that only the respondents-defendants are entitled to receive gratuity and other monetary benefits of Naranjan Singh. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

4. The appellant-plaintiff filed replication and from the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

“1. Whether Mohinder Singh is the adopted son o