1988 Supreme(MP) 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.C. GUPTA, J.
Krishna Kant – Appellant
Vs.
Shyamlal – Respondent
S. A. No. 463 of 1976 (I)
Decided on : 25-08-1988

Headnote:Will – duly registered – endorsements made by Registrar – to be given due weight.

        Short Note

       1. The Will Ex. P – 1 is registered in accordance with Indian Registration Act. It bears endorsement by the Registrar that the person executing the Will was identified by two witnesses and that she admitted that she was executing the Will. The endorsement further prove that the executent put her thumb mark in the presence of Registrar. A document registered in accordance with law will have to be given some legal weight and taken into consideration at least as a circumstance. In view of the endorsement it will be prima facie assumed that the document was executed by deceased Sarjudevi voluntarily and knowingly that she was executing the Will. In such a situation it will be the responsibility of the appellants to show how the Registrar neglected to perform his duties. As long as it is not held that the Registrar has not performed his duties as required by law the document cannot be ignored. If the deceased Sarjudevi had appeared before the Registrar and had voluntarily executed the document it would be wholly unnecessary to look into the evidence about the place or person by whom it was written. It would also be unnecessary to look into the evidence regarding suspicious circumstances. In Rani Purnimadevi Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb (AIR 1962 SC 567), the Supreme Court has laid down the law on the subject as under

       "There is no doubt that if a will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineneS. But the mere fact that a will is registered will not, by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its executive and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of the will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the will) that the testator knew that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting the fact that the will was registered would not be much Value, it is not unknown that registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. Law reports are full of cases in which registered wills have not been acted upon: (See, for example, Vellaswamy Servai v. Sharaman Servai, ILR 8, Rang. 179 : (AIR 1930 PC 24), Surendra Nath v. Jnanedra Nath, AIR 1932 Cal. 574 and Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh, (S) AIR 1955 SC 346. Therefore, the mere fact of registration may not be itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a will; though the fact that there has been registration would be an important circumstance in favour of the will being genuine if the evidence as to registration establishes that the testator admitted the execution of the will after knowing that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting. "

       2. From the aforesaid it would be clear that this Court cannot ignore registration of Will altogether. It will be for the appellants to prove that endorsement made by the Registrar which are treated to be prima facie correct are really not correct. As long as the endorsements are not shown to be incorrect, the endorsements will have to be given due weight and the Will prima facie be treated as genuine. AIR 1962 SC 567 followed.

       Appeal dismissed.