Validity of a Will depends on proving execution with at least one supporting attesting witness; failure to do so renders the Will invalid under applicable laws.

JUDGMENT

DEEPAK GUPTA , J.

This judgment shall dispose of two appeals – RSA No.168 of 1993 {arising out of Civil Suit No. 140 of 1984 titled as “Khazani Devi and another vs Smt. Sarti and others” (hereinafter referred as 'first suit') and Civil Appeal No.238 of 1991 titled as “Smt. Khazani and another vs Smt. Sarti and others”}; and RSA No.169 of 1993 {arising out of Civil Suit No. 414/1 of 1984 titled as “Sarti vs Smt. Khajani and others” (hereinafter referred as 'second suit') and Civil Appeal No.187 of 1991 titled as “Smt. Khazani and another vs Sarti and another”}, as facts of both the cases are intertwined and both the cases are with respect to the same subject matter of dispute between the same parties.

2. Some admitted facts may be noticed first. One Chhotu son of Sukh Lal, resident of village Hassangarh, was owner of the suit property detailed and described in head note of Civil Suit No.140 of 1984. Said Chhotu expired on 18.06.1978 leaving behind his widow Smt. Sarti; and three daughters, namely Khazani, Dhanpat & Anguri. The parties are Hindus. Mutation No.975 dated 16.06.1979 was sanctioned on the basis of natural succession in favour of said four legal heirs i.e. Smt. Sarti, Khazani, Dhanpati and Anguri to the extent of 1/4^th share each.

First Suit:

3. Two daughters, namely Khazani and Dhanpati brought the first suit in respect of the immovable properties mentioned in head note ‘A’ to ‘D’ of the plaint; and National Saving Certificates detailed in head note ‘E’ of the plaint, against their mother Smt. Sarti and sister Anguri. Tan Singh, husband of Anguri was also impleaded as one of the defendants. It was pleaded that after the death of Chhotu, his widow and three daughters became joint owner in possession of the suit properties to the extent of 1/4^th share each on the basis of mutation No.975 sanctioned on 16.06.1979. However, plaintiffs had come to know that defendant No.1 Smt. Sarti had got entered mutation No.4521 dated 24.04.1983 in respect of the property mentioned at head note ‘A’ of the plaint on the basis of a WILL dated 18.11.1977 alleged to have been executed by Chhotu. Said WILL was challenged by the plaintiffs to be null & void on the grounds that it was not a genuine document; that it was obtained by fraud; that as per information, Chhotu was asked to put his thumb impression on the pretext of obtaining Mukhtiarnama; that Chhotu had not executed the WILL in his sound disposing state of mind; and that Chhotu was not in good health and proper state of mind as besides being 75 years of age, he was sick and infirm prior to this death and so, was not capable of executing the WILL. It was pleaded further that otherwise also, the WILL was shrouded by various suspicious circumstances. It was alleged that mutation on the basis of alleged WILL has been sanctioned without any notice to the plaintiffs.

4. Plaintiffs pleaded further that during his life time, Chhotu had sold 9 kanals 8 marlas of land detailed in para No.7 of the plaint in favour of one Sube Singh for consideration of 16,500/-. Said amount was deposited by Chhotu in the name of his wife-defendant No.1 Smt. Sarti in Sub Post Office, Gohana Mandi on 28.04.1978 in the form of six National Saving Certificates for seven years for a total sum of R