Inderjit Kaur v. Ranjit Kaur And ORS

Defendant No.3 is in appeal. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. appellant as defendant No.3, respondent No.1 as plaintiff and respondents No.2 to 7 as defendants.

Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that she along with defendants No.1 to 7 are owners in possession to the extent of 1/8 share each in the estate left behind by Pritam Singh son of Labhu Ram.

The dispute in the appeal relates to estate left by Pritam Singh which has been fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. As per the admitted facts Pritam Singh married twice and died on 25.06.2008 leaving

behind 7 children and one widow i.e. the appellant. Present appellant who was arraigned as defendant No.3 propounded a WILL dated 04.06.2008 claiming to have been executed by Pritam Singh whereby he bequeathed his entire property in her favour. To prove WILL one of the attesting witnesses Balkar Singh was examined as DW-2. The Courts below after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that Balkar Singh was not a truthful witness. The WILL propounded by the defendant was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Pritam Singh died 21 days after execution of WILL. Description with respect to sons and daughters left by him is in correct. Balkar Singh while appearing in the witness box could not satisfy the requirement of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the 1925 Act'). He even failed to identify signatures of Pritam Singh on Ex.P3, the same being in Urdu script. While he claimed to have recognized signatures of Pritam Singh on WILL despite the same also being in URDU.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. She refers to the finding recorded by the Trial Court to the effect that no reason has been assigned to exclude the sons and daughters and refers to the WILL wherein it has been mentioned that the sons and daughters are being excluded by the testator as they have been given sufficient property by the testator during his life time. She thus submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below dislodging the WILL cannot be sustained. She further refers to testimony of plaintiff-Ranjit Kaur PW-1. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the admission made by

Ranjit Kaur that the suit has been filed at the instance of her brother Jasvir Singh and that sons of Pritam Singh namely Jasvir Singh and Harjit Singh were embroiled in proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. It has been contended that it was but obvious for Pritam Singh to exclude his sons owing to such disputes. She accordingly submits that once attesting witness came and testified supporting the execution of the WILL, the Courts below ought not have dislodged a registered WILL.

It has been further contended that even though there is time gap of only 21 days between the execution of the WILL and death of Pritam Singh but in the absence of any evidence to suggest that Pritam Singh was not in control of his physical and/or mental faculties at the time of execution of the WILL the short time gap cannot be held to be fatal to the case of the appellant. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents have referred to the WILL to submit that even the number of children left by Pritam Singh was not correctly described. This puts whole of the document under cloud of suspicion. It has been contended that no reason has been assigned to exclude sons and daughters. Reference is being made to the admissions made by propounder of the WILL Inderjit Kaur, who appeared in the witness box as DW-2.

It has been submitted that Inderjit Kaur admitted that Pritam Singh had good relations with his sons and daughters yet all of them have been excluded without assigning any reason.

given by Pritam Singh to any of his sons and daughters. While plaintiff appeared in witness box not even a suggestion was put to her with respect to handing over of any property to her by Pritam Singh during his life time. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

In the present case propounder of the WILL is defendant No.2. She is not only required to prove the execution of the WILL in terms of Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act, but also has a bounden duty to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding the WILL, if any. In order to satisfy the terms of Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act, the WILL is required to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Balkar Singh one of the attesting witnesses was examined as DW2. The attesting witness, Balkar Singh, has dented the case of the defendant irreparably. From the entire testimony of Balkar Singh it is evident that even though he claimed that Pritam Singh signed the WILL in his presence but he nowhere says that the same was read over to Pritam Singh after it was drafted. Rather he admits that after the WILL was typed/scribed it was never read over. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the propounder

of the WILL failed to discharge the burden to satisfy the necessary ingredients of Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act. Coming on to the suspicious circumstances, the initial lines of the WILL regarding number of sons and daughters is evidently wrong. Defendant in her testimony admitted that Pritam Singh left behind four daughters and three sons whereas, WILL mentions of three sons and three daughters. In the WILL the testator claims to have given sufficient property to his sons and daughters during his life time. There is nothing on record by way of pleadings or evidence mentioning any property given by the testator to any of the sons or daughters during his life time. Pure findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts after analyzing the entire evidence on record. There is no piece of evidence that can be said to have been misread or ignored by the Courts below. Even though the second appeal has to be entertained by this Court in terms of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, but question of law still remains sine-qua-non to entertain the appeal.

Finding no question of law involved in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.