L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 Date of Decision : July 03, 2009 Kartar Kaur etc. ...Appellants Versus Gurdeep Kaur etc. ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S.Thira, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is against the judgment dated 15.2.1989 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh on 28.5.1988. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding estate of one Hardial Singh Sekhon, who died on 8.6.1986, leaving behind is mother Kartar Kaur-appellant No.1, wife Gurdip Kaur Sekhon-respondent No.1, son Lajeshwar Singh-respondent No.2 and daughter Taranjot Kaur- respondent No.3, as the Class-I heirs. The wife, son and the daughter have sought probate in respect of Will dated 21.5.1986 (Ex.P-2), alleged to have been executed by the deceased, attested by Shri Mohinder Singh, PCS (Retd.) and Manmohan Singh, DPI, UT-Chandigarh. Reliance was also placed on a Codicil dated 8.6.1986 (Ex.P-1) making slight amendments in the terms of the Will, attested by Dr. S.K.Aggarwal, L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 2 MRCP and one Lal Singh, (Retd.) Joint Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab. As per the said Will and the Codicil, the mother was given income from the agricultural land situated at Villages Wadala and Daud, District Amritsar, for her life-time, besides the amount of insurance policy taken up by the deceased in the name of his mother. All self acquired immovable property and his share of the HUF property, the amount of insurance policy in which nominee was his daughter, entire money in banks and all other moveable property such as cash, scooter, telephone owned or possessed, were bequeathed to his daughter. All benefits, which were to accrue to the deceased from the Government, the same were bequeathed in favour of his wife Gurdeep Kaur. It may be noticed that the deceased was posted as Inspector General of Police, an IPS Officer, allocated to Punjab, whereas the wife is a member of Indian Administrative Services, Punjab Cadre. The son was said to be brilliant in studies having obtained 97% marks in Matriculation and eligible for scholarship of US $ 2000 per month for his studies abroad and Rs.2000/- per month in India upto Dectorate Level. His admission to prestigious College/University was assured and a glorious future financial as well as otherwise awaited him, His son was likely to settle abroad after completion of his education and not considered worthwhile by the deceased to settle properties in general and immovable properties in particular on his son. The Will was entrusted to his old friend Mr. Ved Bassi with the direction that he shall pass on the Will to his wife after his death. Wife was appointed as executrix of the Will. By virtue of the Cordicil, the various retirement benefits falling to the share of his wife were required to be utilized by her for the benefit of his son Lajeshwar L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 3 Singh, till the age of 21 years. On the other hand, Kartar Singh and Iqbal Singh Sekhon, brother of the deceased, contested the claim of grant of probate on the basis of Will dated 21.5.1986 and instead propounded Will dated 10.2.1986 allegedly executed by the deceased in favour of Kartar Kaur his mother drafted by Mr. Kailash Sameul, an Advocate of Amritsar and attested by Iqbal Singh Sekhon, bequeathing half share of all moveable and immoveable properties to Smt. Kartar Kaur except House No.215, Sector 16, Chandigarh, of which Kartar Kaur is the exclusive owner. The remaining half share was bequeathed to Taranjot Kaur, minor daughter of the deceased. The learned trial Court allowed the petition after discussing the voluminous evidence led by the parties, holding that the deceased has executed Will (Ex.P-2) in the presence of each of the witnesses namely Manmohan Singh (PW-4) and Mohinder Singh (PW-5). The said Will was executed after reading and understanding the contents of the Will and the deceased put his signatures on the Will in the presence of each of the witnesses. Manmohan Singh (PW-4) is a retired DPI of Schools and known to the deceased since childhood, more intimately from the year 1953 onwards. The other witness namely Mohinder Singh was found to be known to the deceased since the year 1964, when the witness was posted as GA to Deputy Commissioner, Ambala and the deceased was ASP under training at Ambala. Dr. Surinder Kumar Aggarwal (PW-1) is the attesting witness of Codicil known to the deceased since 1969. Lal Singh (PW-2), (Retd.) Joint Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, also knew Shri Shekhon since 1969, when he was posted as District Food & L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 4 Supplies controller, Hoshiarpur, when the deceased was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police. Shri Ved Bassi has appeared as PW-3. He has deposed that he knew Shri Shekhon since 1978 and his relations with him, were quite friendly and intimate. He also stated that on 21.5.1986, Shri Shekhon handed over his last Will to him followed by Codicil (Ex.P- 1) dated 8.6.1986. He has deposed that Shri Shekhon told him that in the event of his death, these documents should be handed over to his wife and in case she pre-deceases him, then these documents should be handed over to his son. He has handed over these documents to the wife on 28.6.1986. Gurdeep Kaur, wife of the deceased, appeared as PW-6 and deposed that Shri Ved Bassi had delivered these documents to her on 28.6.1986. It was found that the execution of this documents is proved by the consistent testimony of 4 independent and impartial witnesses and their custodian Ved Bassi (PW-3). It was also found that it was on 22.5.1986, when he was attending office, he got a heart attack and that from the testimony of Dr. Sarat Chandra (RW-5), it was held that the deceased has no previous history of angina or any other heart disease. It has been further found that the deceased was fully conscious on 8.6.1986 till 7.00 PM, but on account of sudden heart attack suffered by the deceased after 7.00 PM, Shri Shekhon died. It was, thus, found from the testimony of Dr. Chandra that the stand of the present appellants that the deceased was not in his senses on 8.6.1986 is effectively negated by their own witness Dr. Sarat Chandra. Reference is made to letter dated 29.5.1986 (Ex.P-15) to the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh informing him about his sickness and other matters. The learned trial Court found that the Will (Ex.P-2) shows that L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 5 it is most natural Will in which the deceased made a very fair and natural distribution of his properties according to the need based requirements of each one of his heirs. The Will is a detailed and self-explanatory document, which gives insight into the mind of the testatory. He has made sufficient provisions for his mother, by providing life estate for his mother of the entire income of his agricultural land and bequeathing the amount of insurance policy in her favour. It was also found that the only person, who has not got any part of the deceased's inheritance is the wife, which was explained in the Will that she is holding a responsible and senior position in the Punjab Government and is the only daughter of her parents and, therefore, does not need any financial help. The plea of the appellants that the husband and wife had strained relations was negatived in view of the averments of strained relations raised by the appellants in Civil Suit No.516 dated 1.10.1987 i.e. after the death of the deceased. There were 5 earlier civil suits filed by the mother and Iqbal Singh Shekhon, brother of the deceased, against the wife and daughter, but in none of the case there was any plea of strained relationship between the deceased and the wife. From the other evidence brought on record, it was found that the plea of the appellant that there was strained relationship and the husband and wife are not living together is not correct. The Will dated 10.2.1986 propounded by the appellants was not found validly executed document. The said Will is scribed by Mr. Kailash Sameul (RW-3). Iqbal Singh Sekhon (RW-2), brother of the deceased and Jaspal Singh (RW-4) are the attesting witness. The appellant has appeared as RW-1. The learned trial Court found that there are fatal internal inconsistencies in the Will. Shri Shekhon, a high ranking officer of the L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 6 rank of Inspector General of Police, describes his age to be 50 years, whereas he was 48 years of age. It is recited in the Will that he is suffering from high-blood pressure, but Dr. Sarat Chandra (RW-5) has deposed from the record of P.G.I. that the deceased did not suffer from any high-blood pressure. Still further, the son Lajeshwar Singh is set to be adopted by his maternal grant parents, but the said fact is not proved. The Will also recites that relation between husband and wife are strained, but such strained relations are not proved. The Executor is a gold medalist in LL.B and a gold medalist in LL.M (Part-I), high ranking an Inspector General of Police would not get his Will drafted in Punjabi and that too from a lawyer at Amritsar, when he did not know him previously. The deceased was posted at Chandigarh and legal advice was available to him at Chandigarh. The trial Court also found that there is sufficient space between the name of Shri Sekhon and his signatures. The trial Court found that virtually the Will is dictated and drafted by Iqbal Singh, brother of the deceased. Still further, the trial Court found that it is highly insignificant and suspicious that the deceased would bequeath his much properties to his mother, who is a heart patient for the last 17 years and no alternative provisions had been made in the Will for the eventuality, if the deceased happened to survive his aged mother. Even daughter was practically debarred as House No.215, Sector-16, Chandigarh, was bequeathed to mother Kartar Kaur exclusively. It was also found that the propounder has taken an active part in the execution of the Will, which makes the Will a suspicious document. The attesting witnesses namely Iqbal Singh, is the son of Kartar Kaur, a major beneficiary and Jaspal Singh, is Iqbal Singh's wife brother. Thus, both L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 7 the attesting marginal witnesses are not the independent witnesses. Still further, the trial Court found that there are considerable discrepancies in the statements of two marginal witnesses and Kailash Samuel, the scribe. Even the conduct of the appellants, after the death of Shri Sekhon, renders the Will a suspicious document. It was found that in Civil Suit No.165 dated 26.3.1987 and in Civil Suit No.181 dated 31.3.1987, the appellant has not claimed inheritance on the basis of Will (Ex.R-1). House No.215, Sector-16, Chandigarh was claimed by the appellant in equal share to the heirs. On 23.4.1987, Kartar Kaur, the appellant gave an application to the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, through Iqbal Singh, her attorney, that the mutation of Quitet office, site No.9, Sector- 35,Chandigarh, should be done in favour of the natural legal heirs of the deceased. It was only on 4.8.1987, for the first time the Will executed by deceased was propounded in Civil Suit No.165 dated 26.3.1987. After considering the entire evidence in minute details, the learned trial Court allowed the petition, holding the Will (Ex.P-2) dated 21.5.1986 and Codicil dated 8.6.1986 as duly proved to be executed by the deceased and not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances, while the execution of the Will dated 10.2.1986 (Ex.R-1) was not proved. This Court in first appeal against the said judgment affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the wife has failed to clear all suspicious circumstances relating to execution of the Will and the material brought on record failed to satisfy the test of satisfaction of judicial conscience. The suspicious circumstances pointed out were that the name of the person, who drafted these documents and the person, L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 8 who typed the documents is not disclosed. It is not explained that how the name of the witnesses happened to be typed on Codicil, when the witnesses had no prior appointment with the deceased on the said date. Will and the Codicil have been typed on electric typewriter, which is not easily available especially in P.G.I. It was argued that the wife managed to obtain the attestations of the retired civil servants of much lesser rank than herself. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the original record. The Will dated 21.5.1986 runs into 02 pages, typed on both sides in single space. Page 1 of the said Will bears the signature of the executant on the left hand margin of the page. The margin also bears the signatures of the attesting witnesses. The signature of the executant appear on the last page as well. Such discriptive Will containing minute details of the estate of the deceased, coupled with unshattered testimony of both the attesting witnesses namely Mohinder Singh and Manmohan Singh and lack of any surrounding suspicious circumstance, we do not find that any case is made out for interference in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge. The said Will is proved to have been executed even before the executant was admitted in hospital on account of heart- attack. The appellants had not been able to bring on record any suspicious circumstance relating to execution of the Will or participation of the beneficiaries in execution of the Will. None of the attesting witnesses are related to the deceased and have held responsible positions. Since, the deceased was a law graduate; a senior Police Officer; and has L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 9 also passed Part-I LL.M. and a gold medalist, the execution of the Will in such detailed manner cannot be said to be a Will surrounded with suspicious circumstances. Similar, the Codicil is also proved to be executed. The attesting witnesses of the Codicil are again not related to the deceased and were holding responsible positions in the Government as well. The placement of the signatures on the Codicil and the Will does not suggest that the signatures of the executor were already existing on the blank papers, which could possible be used for writing of the Will. There is no unnatural gap in the typed content. In the absence of any such doubt in respect of execution or proof of the Will, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned Single Judge are the findings of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Normally this Court in letters patent appeal is not to reappreciate the evidence. Still, we have gone through the evidence and found that the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge are the possible findings of fact and that no contrary view is possible on the basis of the evidence led, which may warrant any interference in the present appeal. The appellant has propounded the Will dated 10.2.1986. The said Will is written in Punjabi and signatures of the executant on page 2 of the Will are after considerable gap of the written content. The placement of signatures and the written material on the Will itself is suspicious. Still further, the executant was posted at Chandigarh: a senior IPS Officer; law graduate; done Part-I of LL.M.; and a Gold medalist. The signatures of the executant on the said Will are in English. However, the writing of a Will in Punjabi, when the executant himself has signed in L.P.A.No. 646 of 1989 10 English doesn't seems to be plausible. It is not explained that how the deceased could get the Will prepared in Amritsar, when the scribe was not known to him and the attesting witnesses are proved to have interest in beneficiary. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding in respect of non-execution and that the aforesaid Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Will was not propounded at earliest opportunity. No argument was infact raised to dispute the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and by the learned Single Judge in respect of non-execution of the aforesaid Will. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the learned trial Court in respect of the Will propounded by the wife, merits no interference in the present letters patent appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are sought to be disputed by reappreciating the evidence. In intra court appeal, the findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot be permitted to be reagitated. There is no error apparent on record in the findings recorded or any question of law raised, which may warrant interference in the present letters patent appeal. In view thereof, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (T.S.THAKUR) (HEMANT GUPTA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE July 03, 2009 Vimal