IMPORTANT POINT
When evidence of the only one living attesting witness is not inspiring confidence and rather creating suspicion, Will cannot be held proved.
When there are no legal heirs or even agnates to the owner of the property dying instate the nearest cognate will inherit the property.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. The instant appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendants having been aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in regular second appeal No.465/85 dated 12.03.2008 whereby the High Court reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the first appellate Court and consequently decreed the suit.

2. A few facts which are necessary to understand the controversy involved in this appeal in a nutshell are that the respondents in this appeal have filed suit for possession of the suit scheduled properties. To understand the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property it is necessary to have a look at the pedigree table as submitted by the plaintiffs/respondents.

3. Jagan Nath was the owner of the suit property measuring approximately 12 acres of valuable agricultural land in Ludhiana. The wife of Jagan Nath predeceased him, thereafter he passed away issueless on 20.11.1977. The respondents-plaintiffs herein, are the grand-daughters of Smt. Kirpo, who was the sister of father of Jagan Nath. The respondents-plaintiffs claim that by virtue of above relation as depicted in the genealogy, they are entitled to inherit the suit property belonging to Jagan Nath. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the cause of action for the suit arose when the appellants-defendants have forcibly taken possession over the said suit property, after the death of Jagan Nath. Therefore, as being the legal heirs of Jagan Nath respondents/plaintiffs are entitled for possession over the suit property. Hence they have come up with the present suit for possession.

4. The appellants herein as defendants in the suit resisted the suit on several grounds. As per the written statement, the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction. Defendants have denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with late Jagan Nath, who is the owner of the suit schedule property. It was further averred that as late Jagan Nath was properly taken care of by the defendants, he has executed a registered Will dated 17.09.1970 bequeathing the properties in their favour; the said Will was attested by Sadhu Singh and Bachan Singh; but they have admitted the factum of Jagan Nath dying issueless. The relationship of plaintiffs with Kirpo is denied and stated that they are in possession of the property from the last 15 to 16 years and hence sought for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court taking into consideration the dispute involved in the case has framed four issues i.e.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are grand-daughters of Kirpo and whether Kirpo was real sister of Mangal who was father of Jagan Nath.

2. Whether Jagan Nath executed a valid Will in favour of defendants.

3. Whether the suit properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction. What is the market value of the properties (c) to (f) mentioned in para 2 of the plaint.

4. Relief.

6. The Trial Court after a full-fledged trial, taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs are grand-daughters of Kirpo and Kirpo was real sister of Mangal who was the father of Jagan Nath. While coming to such conclusion, the Court has also taken into consideration an admission made by the defendants in a suit for damages against Krishna Devi where Jarnail Singh gave a statement with regard to relationship of Plaintiffs with Jagan Nath as per the genealogy. When the defendants failed to give any satisfactory explanation for denying admission coupled with the other evidence led by the plaintiffs, Court has come to the conclusion that relationship has been proved. With regard to the second issue of execution of registered Will in favour of the defendant, Court has disbelieved the evidence of defendants and has held the issue against the defendants holding that the genuineness of the Will was not proved. The 3rd issue of Court Fee was hel