The latest executed Will prevails in determining property ownership; validity must be substantiated by evidence of execution.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-Lovleen Bihal (appellant herein) regarding the property in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court on 09.01.2023. Appeal filed by the said plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 20.12.2023.

2. Against the abovesaid concurrent findings, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. Subject matter of dispute is a house situated at Guru Nanak Pura, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala detailed and described in the head note of the plaint, which was admittedly owned by Smt. Kulwant Kaur. Plaintiff-Lovleen Bihal, defendant No.3-Neelam Rani and defendant No.4-Renu Bala are the daughters; and defendant No.1-Ravinder Bihal is the son of said Smt. Kulwant Kaur. Defendant No.2-Sarwan Singh is the devar (brother-in-law) of Smt. Kulwant Kaur and he is unmarried & issueless and admittedly, used to reside with Smt. Kulwant Kaur.

4. The case of the plaintiff seeking declaration to be joint owner in possession of the suit property in her favour and that of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is based upon a Will dated 14.02.2014, as it is claimed that Smt. Kulwant Kaur had executed the said Will not only in favour of her brother-in-law i.e., defendant No.2, but also in favour of her three daughters i.e., plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 & 4. Son Ravinder Bihal had been disinherited. However, later on, Smt. Kulwant Kaur is alleged to have executed another Will dated 09.04.2012 registered on 11.04.2012, bequeathing the suit property in favour of defendant No.2-Sarwan Singh alone i.e., her brother-in-law, who later on sold the suit property to defendant No.1 by virtue of sale deed dated 07.12.2015. Plaintiff alleged the Will dated 09.04.2012 registered on 11.04.2012 to be the result of fraud and cheating. She further assailed the legality and validity of the consequent mutation No.40485 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of said Will, besides the subsequent transaction of sale deed dated 07.12.2015 made by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and the subsequent mutation.

5.1 Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 i.e., sisters of plaintiff admitted her claim.

5.2 Suit was contested by defendant No.1, who claimed to have become owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 07.12.2015 executed by Sarwan Singh in his favour and who had become owner of the same by virtue of the Will dated 09.04.2012 registered on 11.04.2012.

5.3 Defendant No.2 supported the stand of defendant No.1.

6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. The Courts below found that Will dated 14.02.2014 relied by the plaintiff; as well as the Will dated 09.04.2012 registered on 11.04.2012 were executed by Smt. Kulwant Kaur and since the Will dated 09.04.2012 registered on 11.04.2012 was later in time, so that Will was to prevail, as per which defendant No.2 had become owner of the suit property being the beneficiary of the Will. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The Appellate Court endorsed the findings.

7. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that Will dated 09.04.2012 registered on 11.04.2012 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, as there was no reason for Smt. Kulwant Kaur to cancel the earlier Will dated 14.02.2012, which had been executed by her just about two months prior to the alleged subsequent Will. Besides, there was no reason for Smt. Kulwant Kaur to ignore her daughters including the plaintiff. Not only this, Smt. Kulwant Kaur was not in a proper state of mind so as to execute the W