!N TTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHAniSGARH S.A. N0._^~C / 2006 APPEliLANT : ni Pl.AIN^IFF RESPO'NDENTS SlFENDANTS u .." Ip ^••''"L/ty' ..••° '^•^fy A.--' ../•^y-'iy 21 '-^' yl ^°-"A\ri *<?^' AB .»•••• Xunwar Sai, Aged about 50 years, S/o. Gholtu, R/o. Village Sahanpur, P.S. & Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpur), District Surguja (CGj VERSUS Baiya Bai, Aged about 40 years, D/o. Gorakhnath, R/o. Village Sahanpur, P.S. & Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpurl, District Surguja (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF C!VI!. PROCEDURE CODE XI-HC-22 3:n^T?iT R^WSD^T sti*<ieh gf??r Ml l» 3^'^ffqRTq', ffiTfly'lfi, lcldiyy Sll^l ^ia<=h -_.~(:A ^>. Wl\v[[ fhW* •-•••••••••-••••••••• ^ 200| R'b.A 3ii^r?RiTW;trf?(T 29.8.2006 Shri Maaoj Paraajape, (jiounsel for fhe appellant. Ai^uments on adinissioju heard. Order dictated as follovils: ORDBR tll^fM'fl-l HIHClT ^ fe^t (RRZR ^srf^fTan^r (29.8.2006) This is the plauitififs apjpeal, filed under Section 100 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure. | It arises out of judgiaent and decree dated 11.11.2005, p^.ssed by the Fu-st Additional District Judge, Surguja, Am|bikapur ia Civil Appeal No.4- A/2005, ansing out of Judginent aud decree dated 30.12.2004, passed in CivU $uit No, 70-A/2004 by fhe Vth CivUJudge Class-II, Ambikap|ur(CG). The brief facts are fh.alj ffled a suit for declaration of| fhe plauitifF, appeUant heretn, fiQe and also for possession in relation to the suit lands, d|escribed in Schedule-A of ttie plaiiit. The plaiat allegation^ are that fhe suit laads were the self-acquired properties whose nanie, a setfleinent pi of one Jagamiattt Goad, on |i((a was prepared. Jagannafh Gond was issuetess. He ha4 taken the plamtiff as his son from the plamtifiFs fafher ia tl|ie childhood ofthe plaintifFaad had kept the plaintiff wifh 1i|m as his son aud the plaiutifF resided with Jagaunafh as h^s son tiU his lifetune. It is the case of plaintiff that after |the deafh of Jagaimafh, the property was succeeded by h^s wife nainely-Siiit. Bhokhi. It XI-HC-22 sniST^iT f^fNian^r sbli<*gf?(T l<1 <»' 3sr ri<i<!)i(»i4i, BTfltf'is, Riciiyy STT^T^iaeb *11*1Wlshli<») ••••;•••••••••••••••• ^q- 200^ fd<)»A 3I1^T5?gT8iKgf?g' — 2-'~ is further pleaded by fhe pl^tiff that Bhokhi executed an unregistered WiU-deed dated daughter of real brother +l<(fa<fl-l WRff ^' fecA (Rl^K ^ 3[f^IT 3-n^T 22.1.1989 (Ex.P-1) m favour of plaln-fclff declarmg him t^> be the owner of her entire property afber her death. ^hokhi died on 25.1.1997 and after her death, the plaiatiy became the owner of entire property, which was originaU^ belonging to Jagarmafh. The cause of action arose wheti the defendant, who is the of Jagaunath, clauned the properties as the successor tlj.ereof. The defendant resisted| fhe claun of the plamtiff. It was pleaded by her that the his sou by Jagaruiath. Siac4 he fatls in remote iielation of Jagannath, he was only lookjng afiter fhe agricultural works of Jagaunafh alongwifh him.. fhe adopted son of Jaga[uaa|th. She also denied fhe valid execution offhe Wffl. Learaed trial Court fi~a(ned vanous ^sues in fhis case and vide issue No. l-a and b; adopted son of Jagaunath. document also, he becoines laads. the trial Court, the defendan plaintiffwas never adopted as She denied fhe plaintiflF to be held that ftie plamtiffwas fh.e We issue No.2, it furfher held that the wife of J^auaath ^.amely-Bhokhi had executed a WUl-deed in favour of the ^laintifF aad by virtue of this the absolute owner of the suit Again.st the aforesaid jijidgment and decree, passed by : filed a Firat Appeal beforc fhe XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T fN?R3=n^T stiiw Hf?(T SST ^iww«,viiSiwi<a, Ridiwy< 3T^?Tq^? ^IIWI !ht<i<h ••••••••••••••••••••• jc^- 200 ^ fSre^; 3i^TgTtrTwnf??T 3' lower appeUate court. The appeal and reversed the findjings So lar as the finding in relatijoa lower appeUate court said adoption, raised by the plai^itifF amoiiat of evidence, pertam(m.g I^wer appellate court allowed the djings recorded by the trial Court. to adoptk)n is coacemed, the ^hat there was no such plea of in tiie plaint, therefore, no be looked into by the trial C] to adoptfon fa uot in accordsl of WU1, it said vide para 26 be the attestiag witness of was examiaed by fhe plai] i(m.g to adoption was required to }ourt and the finding in relation Ince with law. About fhe finding |that onty one witness, shown to 1|he WiU namely-Pitambar (PW-1) ibtiff in tfae trial Court. This provislons witaess has only said fhat a| favour of the plaiatiff an(J impression on fhe docuinenl He also proved his own sij appeUate court said that th] accordance with the Succession Act aud Sectioul has not beea proved. Leamed counsel for reversing fiudiug in relation| m. accordance with law. Hil evidence of PW-l, who is on| WiU was validly proved and| Wlf?I^T IfflRff ff tecS rf3R?TC Sisrf^irsn^r Will was executed by Bhokhi in Bhokhi had put her thumb : (Wffl dated 22.1.1989, Ex. P-1). i;nature on the WUL The first e valid execution of the WiU iu of Section 63 of the India 68 of the Indiaa Evidence Act ^he appeUaat submits that the Ito vaUd executioa of WiB is not ^ submission is that as per the je of the attestmg witnesses, the the torial Court erred in law in 1 jp asaqj, 'aottnoaxa sfi guiACud SBq ^8B3I 1.B 883TItIM 811^83^ aq 5.0a i[Bqs ^uaiimoop B qons aq cq MB[ ^q paiinbaj ^naTanoo^ aip ipiA sieap 89 uofl.oag aosisd sip jo 8Tit)UApTreq jo pire sijadxajo snoTmdo aip SupuApaBq B qons SmACud joj| paACud aq fsma nosjsd pies Aq paiiSis sq cq pa83]]B si fvts^s •asod.md stip joj viBAa/faj. aie suoposg •s^Tiauinoop jo jocudl Aioiiiq.K).s sq^ o^ apem aq| 'paAojd aq 04 si ^T Aoq Siiipios^ $ap[33S ^qnop oa si '^[t^ s jo yi^ v guipiinodcud A)JBd 3fB ^v 3q|tjo iicn ^pv aqt nasq seq ti 'gfrfr 38 6S61 'SFf s.isqio pnre BniaiB(8inmi^; 3Ttt •jfg 'sS^settwSi BjgqoBiB^ua^: 3tRJO 33Tl3Said 3Tp m 311188 IIFA 3TB tiSr8 '-lo^ui.ss^ aip MB8| o-t 8Bij[ (]T^ jo japiinodaid SE^ 3Tp SAOlld O^ JSpIO TTI ^Bip. g^g •^TI^relilBCTSPiOJo J3»Bra| aip IRIM aouBpioooB ui p3Acud ^ l^Ueltj^te^' • >l>tkj> pi&j ^ ^->hlh l-y,.l.ijb.|tfe 3sod.md sq^ JGJ panao naaq atio TO.un sonapiAS SB pasn fifBTy. sapiAO.id ^i pire 'paf.sa^s atp. jo noTi.naaxa sip jo jocud ^irBA3p.[ apBin aiB pauiaouoo ipiM pa^TirenSoB snosisd 3tRJO /,fr PITB Sfr -Sg japmi Ipue 'SuRUApueq sn^ va aq o^ aiT4EaSis sip 'uosjad Are fmoop i3 ji 'JJQ aop.oag japun aanapiAg sip jo 39 pue ^g scp. iu3Ao3 qoTqAt saoisiAo.td ^iqBi.iAain i.snur soaajajai t iii 'pitB ^iiaittnoop B SAOiid o^ tmB[0 v Suisfsva ssiauaq^o ^eip ^jnoo xady atp Aq ppq jaflan L'H }° •savfe'ca aip ui •jot^ss} p3tl8l8 S3A[3Sia3Tp ^3Tft pTIB sassaiitUA OAq aip ^Bq} 3Ao.id 'IHA 3TB J° uopB^sa^iB anp Os^seT^rv 'n«ai.qdsireo aq^ ai pjaq ussq seq ^i •AiiB[JO SnoiSIAOild 3AOqB [OTI SBM 3-aiBS 3Tp tBTp StITpIOq —}-7-- j^ttisjjaaj^ite •S>i»bJ ^OOZ .t-B .. __ tblhus 11-1hlh 4»Kh 1^1 >'Rrtll->bJ 'Slift^W 'h.Plh.lh- tap USjrt ifelhKS I^IKMbjl-b] l^lfr ZZ-3H-IX XI-HC-22 sn^rqRr f^iwsn^r OTNifff?(T ^'. 3^ ^WM^, W^W>«, btdlti^< STT^TTaraF? ^^. r% NWWI »W*l••••••••••••••••••••• ^ 200^ ft^g sn^rroiRKflfer —S~ mathematical certainty. The usual test of the satisfactiod «M'l<ti-)<fl-itiitioT ^' test' tRiwi< ^srf^Tsn^r provisions prescribe fhe ret^uirements and fhe nature of proof which inust be satisfie^ by fhe party who relies on a document in a Court of lai^. Thus, tfae question as to whether the WiU set up by t(ie pn3poimder is proved to be fhe last WiU of the testator h^s to be decided in fhe light of fhese provisions. It would pr(ma iacie be true to say that the WiU has to be proved like anjy other document except as to the special requirements of a^testation prescribed by S.63 of fhe India Succession Act. A|s in fhe case of proof of ofh.er documents so in the WiU it w(j>uld be idle to expect proofwith ;est to be applied woiild be the pf tihie prudent mmd iu such matters. It has been again |ieM by the Apex Court in the matter of JanM Nm'aTan EBhoir Vs. Narayaa Hamdeo Kadam. 2003 (11 C.G.L.J.190 that on a combiued reading of Section 63 of the Succes^ion Act with section 68 of fhe E^vidence Act, it appears fhalj attestatioiis were also niade (c) of Section 63 of the Sui Act does not say that both a person propounding fhe wiU has got to prove that the Willjwas diily and validly executed. That cannot be done by simp}y proving fhat the signature on ttie Wfll was that of the tes^ator but must also prove fhat [properfy as reqiiired by clause ;cession Act. The Apex Court further held that it is true tbat Section 68 of the Evidence or all the attesting witoesses must be examiaed. But at le^st one attesting wito.ess has to _-<'L—-' ^) XI-HC-22 STI^TqiT R-fi+sn^T stiliti trf?(T JfiIIRi sunita ^ y '•V. 3ST -Ml*llct'4, »xnu<l(»,R|dl<iy 311^1 Msich KTWTT 3Rtira? ""' W]' 200^ f^s sn^r BTaraTvf?s - & wim be caUed for proving due section 63. In fhe iustaat case, thoi|ig he had put his signature on ft^ had also put her thuiab statement, does not dispense requirement to prove a WiB. 63 of the Indiau Successionls E^ndence Act. And iu fhe f^ case, fhe first appellate court| aad vaUd execution of fhe rightly reversed the finding re4 Shri Paranjape has no| poiat of adoption as he pleading in relation to adopti^i aud the first appeUate court ofadoption also, forwant In the opiuiou of this substantial question of law, i^P appeal is not worfh admissj suminarily at fhe motion stag^ as to cost. exec^tion ofthe wffl as envisaged in ulnder tii<ifii<fl-i HWW is te^t <Riwi< ^iSrf^ITsn^T )i|igh, the said witaess says lliat te WiU, Ex. P-1 aad the testator uapression, but only such |wifh the responsibiUly of legal the provisious of Section Act aad Section 68 of fhe lcts and circumstances of the has rightiy held that the due was not proved and it has jorded by fhe trial Court. I: pressed fhis appeal ou the that ia fact, there was no by fhe plamtiff in fhe plaint r^htty rejected fhe finding i^-oper pleadings iu fhis regard. ipourt, there appears to be no i^wolved ia tfais appeal aad fhe ion. The sanie is dismissed itsetf. There shall be no order adinits On ttas Qfp^oper pleadinj Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (-fl^y^)