A Will's validity hinges on proving its proper execution and attestation; mere failure to favor certain heirs does not indicate suspicious circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Suit for joint possession of the suit property filed by the plaintiffs-Smt. Bheero and her sister Smt. Kashmiro (contesting respondents No.1 & 2 herein), was decreed by trial Court of ld. Sub Judge Ist Class, Taran Taran vide judgment & decree dated 19.04.1990. The appeal filed by contesting defendants No.1 to 7 (appellants herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide his judgment dated 28.10.1992.

2. It is against the aforesaid concurrent findings that the defendants No.1 to 7 have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal.

3. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

4. Undisputedly, three brothers namely Tara Singh, Chanan Singh and Sadhu Singh were owners in possession of the suit property measuring 177 kanal 07 marla situated in village Rasulpur, Tehsil Tarn Taran, as per details given in the plaint, in equal share. Chanan Singh died unmarried and issueless on 20.05.1977. Plaintiffs are the daughters of Sadhu Singh; whereas, defendants No.1 to 7 (appellants herein) are the widow and children of Tara Singh.

5.1 The dispute pertains to the estate left behind by Chanan Singh. The case of the plaintiffs i.e. daughters of Sadhu Singh is that after the death of Chanan Singh, his estate was inherited by his two brothers namely Tara Singh and Sadhu Singh. Both the brothers have since died and therefore, plaintiffs being the successors-in-interest/daughters of Sadhu Singh are entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit property. It is further the averment of the plaintiffs that defendants No.1 & 2 - Kashmir Singh & Sukhdev Singh Ss/o Tara Singh have got the mutation sanctioned in their favour on the basis of alleged WILL of Chanan Singh in their favour.

5.2 Plaintiffs deny the factum and validity of the Will set up by defendants No.1 & 2 and claimed that the said Will was forged and fictitious document, by which plaintiffs are not bound. It is also alleged that Chanan Singh (deceased) lacked testamentary capacity and was not competent to execute the Will and therefore, after his death, his brother Sadhu Singh had got 1/3 share, which after death of Sadhu Singh has been inherited by the plaintiffs.

5.3 Defendants No.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of Tara Singh (another brother of Chanan Singh); whereas, defendants No.8 to 16 (performa respondent N: 3 to 11 herein) have been impleaded as party to the suit as proforma defendants being co-sharers in the joint Khata.

5.4 On the basis of all the aforesaid averments, plaintiffs filed the suit seeking joint possession of 1/6th share in the disputed property.

6. Only defendants No.1 to 3 & 7 contested the suit. They pleaded that during his life time, Chanan Singh had executed a registered Will dated 17.11.1976 bequeathing 2/3rd share in the suit property in favour of defendant No.1-Kashmir Singh and 1/3rd share in favour of defendant No.2-Sukhdev Singh. Mutation on the basis of the said Will was also sanctioned. They controverted all other averments of the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. In rejoinder, plaintiffs reiterated their claim.

8. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record.

9.1 Trial Court found that the Will dated 17.11.1976 (Ex.D1) relied by the defendants was surrounded by the suspicious circumstances and so, discarded the same. Suit was accordingly decreed on 19.04.1990 and plaintiffs were held entitled for joint possession as owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/6th share i.e. 1/2 share each out of 1/3rd share of Chanan Singh in the total suit land.

9.2 The Appellate Court endorsed the above findings, while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants No.1 to 7 on 2