Gurshaanvir Singh And Another v. Rajveer Singh And Others
!" "
#$
% &&' ' (
% ) * '
+, -*
...
...
+, -*
/
*
!
"
# $
!
%&
!
$!
' (
$
!
$
!
%&
!
$!
-
. ./
$
+0++,1,,
2
3 4
) )
$
$
+%1,,1+&
2
2 4
- 3 /
) )
, (
!
% - /
4
' $ ' . $ $
$ +61&,11&
)
4
$ $
*,
$
4
7 1,1,,1+"
$
4
$
8 !
- !
/ 7 +90
$
4
7 :
,;1+,1+"
$ $
$ 7 !
< $
*%
.
.
*0 . .
4
($
$ 4
*0 . . % - /
$
8 !
7 +90 '
:
,;1+,1+"
$
$
'
$
4
$ +90 0- /
:
,;1+,1+"
$
3 *% $
$ $ 4
4
3 *% $
:
,;1+,1+"
7
'
$ !
- / 3 *0 $ $
:
,;1+,1+"
$
$
$
.
.8 *% . .8 *0 " ($
$ 8
!
"#
$ $
$
%
& #
!
&
'
(
&
)**#
+ ,
!
$ + ) -
= 6 2
:
,;1+,1+"
$ !
7 +90
$
; <
& #
$ 2
!
:
' $ $
$!
$
#
$
$
$ 2 10.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant but find the same to be devoid of merit. 11(i).
The relationship between the parties is admitted. It was admitted that Jailovejeet Singh had contracted two marriages, the first being with Harkirpal Kaur which was dissolved on 17.09.2009. However, the plaintiff was born from this wedlock. The second marriage was performed with defendant No.2 and from the said wedlock, defendant No.1 was born. It also
came on record that Jailovejeet Singh was born from the wedlock of Rashpal Singh with defendant No.4. In so far as the Will dated 28.01.2015 is concerned, the same was not proved in accordance with law. ++ - / Coming to the Will dated 28.01.2015, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 lays down as under:- "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.-Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules: - (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will.
(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
++ - / Further, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down as under:-
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be
attested.--If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:
[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.] ++ - / Notably, none of the attesting witnesses of the Will was examined nor was it pleaded or proved as to who had scribed the Will or whether the Will had been written by the deceased himself. If that was the case, a Hand-Writing expert was required to be examined which was not done. Since the onus to prove the Will was on the defendants, they examined only defendant No.2 Manjit Kaur @ Mandeep Kaur as DW1 and one Jaskaran Singh as DW2.
The said Jaskaran Singh never turned up for crossexamination after tendering his affidavit Ex.DW2/A in examination-in-chief and, therefore, his statement was rightly discarded. From the side of the plaintiff also, only Harkirpal Kaur appeared as PW1. However, since the onus to prove the Will was on the defendants, they failed to discharge the same and, therefore, it was rightly held that the execution of the Will did not stand proved. Once the relationship of the parties was admitted and the Will did not stand proved, the property of Jailovejeet Singh would have to devlove by way of natural succession taking him to have died intestate.
by the Appellate Court. I find absolutely no reason to interfere in the said concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
+, -*
&&' ' ( $$ : 9
>9*
Whether Reportable Yes/No