RSA No.1632 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1632 of 1988 Date of decision: March 07,2011 Gian Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Rattan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.H.S.Saini,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land or, in the alternative, suit for joint possession and declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants were joint owners in possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the parties were related to each other. Bhagwani, widow of Chajju Singh was the RSA No.1632 of 1988 2 owner of the suit property. She had died on 23.5.1982. The pedigree table connecting the parties with Bhagwani deceased, as shown in para 1 of the plaint, is as under:- Chajja Singh _ !__ Bhagwani ! ________________________________________________ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Gian Parkash Teja Rattan Raj Bidhi Uttam Singh Singh Kaur Singh Singh Kaur Singh (dead) (Deft. (deft. (Plff (Plff (Deft (Deft. No.1) No.3) No.2) No.1) No.4) No.2) __________________________________________________ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bachni Sarwan Malkito Malkiat Sangto Shingara Kash Manjit Plff Singh ( Plaff Singh (Plff Singh -mir Singh Kaur No.3 (Plff No.4) No.8) (Plff No.5) No.9) (Plff. (Plff (Plff No. No.6) No.7) 10) Defendants had filed a suit against the plaintiffs and the same was dismissed on 14.3.1983. Defendants had, thus, relinquished their rights qua Will dated 21.5.1982. The Will dated 21.5.1982, alleged by defendants No. 1 and 2 in their favour, was a forged and a fabricated document. Defendants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement admitted the relationship between the parties. It was averred that Bhagwani had executed the Will dated 21.5.1982 in favour of answering defendants as she was being looked after by them. Defendants No.3 and 4 in their written statement averred that as per Will dated 21.5.1982, suit land devolved on defendants No. 1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are the joint owners in possession of the land in dispute?OPP RSA No.1632 of 1988 3 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the suit is barred on the principles of resjudicata?OPD 4.Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action, to file the suit?OPD 6.Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct?OPD 8. Whether Smt. Bhagwani executed any valid will dated 21.5.82 in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2?OPD 7.Relief” The Sub Judge Ist Class Anandpur Sahib dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.1985. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 9.5.1988. Hence, the present appeal by the Defendants No, 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had been successful in proving the due execution of the Will in question. Jarnail Singh, one of the attesting witness to the Will, had proved the due execution of the Will. The Will in question was also attested by the daughters of the executant. The executant was being looked after by the appellants and, hence, she had RSA No.1632 of 1988 4 executed the Will in favour of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has submitted that the Will in question was an unregistered document. The executant had died after two days of the execution of the Will. The executant was 85 years old and was, thus, incapable of executing the Will. The Will scribed by the Scribe, in another case, has been held to be the result of forgery. The Scribe was not a regular deed writer. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The Will is a sacred document and speaks of mind of the executant after his death. In order to prove the due execution of the Will, the propounder of the Will is required to examine atleast one of the attesting witness to the Will. Further the propounder is required to establish that the Will was executed in the presence of the attesting witness and had been attested by the attesting witnesses after the executant thumb marks or signs the same. The propounder of the Will is further required to dispel the suspicious circumstances, if any, surrounding the Will. Defendants, in order to prove the due execution of the Will, have examined the Scribe as well the Attesting Witnesses to the Will. In the present case, a bare perusal of the Will itself leads to the inference that it is not a genuine document. The Will, Exhibit D1 dated 21.5.1982, is an unregistered document. Although registration of the Will is not compulsory but it goes a long way in proving the genuineness of the Will. A perusal of the Will leads to the inference that it has been drafted on a paper which already had RSA No.1632 of 1988 5 the thumb impression of the deceased. The Will in question was executed on 21.5.1982,whereas, the executant died after two days of the execution of the Will. The executant was 85 year old lady. In these circumstances, the fact that the Will was not a registered document gains significance and makes the Will a suspicious document. The deed writer, DW2 Amrit Lal, is not a licensed deed writer nor he maintain any register qua entering the contents of the documents. In another case, a Will was scribed by the deed writer and vide judgment, Exhibit P3, it was held that the Will was forged with active connivance of Amrit Lal. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this fact also makes the Will a suspicious document. DW1 Bidhi Chand admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was having a dispute with Gian Singh. The said Gian Singh is one of the beneficiary under the Will. In case the executant was having some dispute with Gian Singh then there was no occasion for the executant to execute the Will in favour of Gian Singh. This also makes the Will a suspicious document. DW1 stated in his cross-examination that the deed writer had been called by his brother Gian Singh. Gian Singh is a beneficiary to the Will. Under these circumstances, it can be inferred that Gian Singh, who was having a dispute with the deceased, had taken active role in getting the Will executed. This also makes the Will a suspicious document. In view of the above facts, the learned first appellate Court rightly held that the Will in question was a document surrounded by suspicious circumstances. RSA No.1632 of 1988 6 No substantial question of law arises in this case warranting interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge March 07, 2011 arya