A Will must be substantiated by credible evidence, particularly from marginal witnesses; when these witnesses turn hostile, the Will's validity is undermined.

JUDGMENT

Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)

The suit out of which this regular second appeal arises was filed by appellants for declaration that they are owners of suit land in equal shares, fully detailed in head note of plaint, on the basis of registered Will dated 18.03.1985 executed by Chanan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs and for setting aside mutation no.4017 in respect of inheritance of Chanan Singh, having been sanctioned on false and forged Will dated 07.04.1998.

2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011, whereby findings of trial Court on issues no.1 to 6 have been upheld, however, findings on issue no.7 have been set aside and Will dated 07.04.1998 propounded by respondents no.1 to 3 has been declared as illegal, null and void.

3. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that Chanan Singh son of Hira Singh was owner of land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas being ½ share of total land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas, fully detailed in the head-note of plaint, situated in village Brahmpur, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana. Chanan Singh, who was unmarried and issueless, was the real paternal uncle of the plaintiffs died on 24.08.1998. It is the case of plaintiffs/appellants that prior to his death, Chanan Singh executed Will dated 18.03.1985 bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiffs in his sound disposing mind in lieu of services provided to him by the plaintiffs. Defendants no.1 to 3 never rendered any kind of service to Chanan Singh. The plaintiffs also got Chanan Singh treated, who was suffering from Cancer. After the death of Chanan Singh, when the appellants approached the revenue authorities for mutation of inheritance of Chanan Singh in their favour on the basis of registered Will dated 18.03.1985, they came to know that mutation of inheritance of Chanan Singh has already been sanctioned in favour of defendants no.1 to 3 vide mutation no.4017 on the basis of Will dated 07.04.1998. The Will propounded by defendants no.1 to 3 is forged, illegal and a false document. Accordingly, they filed a suit for declaration.

4. Upon notice, defendants no.1 to 3 put in appearance and resisted the suit by taking preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable; that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their own act and conduct; that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and that alleged Will dated 18.03.1985 propounded by the plaintiffs is forged, fictitious and fabricated document. On merits, the relationship of plaintiffs with defendants no.1 to 3 inter se and with that of Chanan Singh had been admitted. It was pleaded that Chanan Singh in his sound and disposing mind and in lieu of services rendered to him by defendants no.1 to 3 executed registered Will dated 07.04.1998 in their favour. The alleged Will dated 18.03.1985 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

5. None appeared on behalf of defendants no.4 to 7 to contest the suit and they were proceeded against exparte by the trial Court.

6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues:

“1. Whether Chanan Singh since deceased executed a valid and registered Will dated 18.03.1985 in favour of plaintiffs?OPP

2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP

3. Whether the alleged Will dated 18.03.1985 propounded by plaintiffs is forged, fictitious and fa