RSA No.845 of 1984 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.845 of 1984 Date of decision:26.04.2011 Parkash Kaur ...Defendant/Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and others ...Plaintiff/Respondents RSA No.607 of 1984 Tara Singh ...Defendant/Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and others ...Plaintiff/Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. H.S.Mattewal, Advocate, for the appellant in RSA No.845 of 1984 Ms.Alka Sarin, Advocate, for the appellant in RSA No.607 of 1984 Mr.Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. -.- RSA No.845 of 1984 2 JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. This judgment of mine shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RSA No.845 of 1984 and RSA No.607 of 1984 as both of them have arisen out of a common judgment and decree dated 24.10.1983 passed by the learned first appellate Court. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal of the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1982 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (herein `the respondents) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of the land as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. They further averred that the land in dispute was allotted to Buta Singh, who was the real uncle of Sampuran Singh. After the death of Buta Singh, the same was inherited by Sampuran Singh. It was further averred that Sampuran Singh executed a Will on 22.5.77 in favour of the plaintiffs, who were tenants. He died on 2.1.1978. Some of the land was originally allotted to Sampuran Singh in village Bassi Kikran, District Hoshiarpur. Although, the same was cancelled yet he wanted to retain allotment of the house in Bassi Kikran but all in vain. In the circumstance, Sampuran Singh started living with the plaintiffs in village Bassi Hasth Khan as the land in dispute was adjacent to the village of plaintiffs. It was also case of the plaintiffs that Sampuran Singh lived with them for about 20 years and they rendered services to him. They performed the last rites of Sampuran Singh. RSA No.845 of 1984 3 The plaintiffs also averred in the plaint that they were having all the belongings and documents related to Sampuran Singh. The plaintiffs further averred that the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade wrongly sanctioned the mutation in favour of defendant No.1 Smt. Parkash Kaur regarding the land in dispute. However the order of Assistant Collector-I Grade was set aside by the Collector in an appeal filed by Tara Singh, defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 claims herself to be the niece (sister's daughter) of Sampuran Singh. She has no relationship with Sampuran Singh, the testator. Defendant No.2 is also not related to Sampuran Singh in any way. The suit was contended by the defendants (herein the appellants) on the ground that Sampuran Singh did not execute any `Will' in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs never rendered any services to him. They also took the stand that the alleged `Will' was a forged document. The defendant No.1 was the daughter of the real sister of Sampuran Singh and thus is entitled to inherit the suit property. The defendant No.2 pleaded that he is the son of the real brother of the grand-father of Sampuran Singh and as such he is entitled to succeed the property in question. After framing of issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.1982 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs having proved the execution of the `Will' by Sampuran Singh in their favour were the owners in possession of the land in dispute. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred two separate appeals out of which one was filed by Smt. Parkash Kaur-defendant No.1 and another one was filed by Tara Singh-defendant No.2, which were allowed by the learned first RSA No.845 of 1984 4 appellate Court. Hence, the present appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that defendant No.1/appellant Parkash Kaur was the nience of Sampuran Singh, therefore, she is entitled to inherit the suit property being the only legal heir. It has also been submitted that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances on the grounds that the same was not registered and not scribed by any regular petition writer. The Will in question was a result of a conspiracy as one of the attesting witnesses was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and another was a Sarpanch of the neighbouring village. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Will was executed at the house of the plaintiffs, where the persons, who were near to the plaintiffs, were present and none of them was called to attest the Will, which raises doubt regarding authenticity of the Will. The Lambardar of the village was not called to attest the Will. It has also been submitted that Sampuran Singh was not living with the plaintiffs, which is proved from the bank record produced by the plaintiffs showing the permanent residence of Sampuran Singh at Bassi Kikran. Therefore, there was no occasion with the plaintiffs for rendering any service to the testator Sampuran Singh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that at the time of execution of the Will, the deceased Sampuran Singh was in sound disposing mind. As the deceased lived with the plaintiffs and they rendered services to him for about twenty years, he executed the Will in their favour. Learned counsel has also submitted that after the death of Sampuran Singh, they performed all the ceremonies. All the belongings and documents of Sampuran Singh were RSA No.845 of 1984 5 still at their house. It has also been submitted that the will executed by deceased Sampuran Singh in favour of the plaintiffs have been held to be genuine and valid document by the learned courts below after considering the evidence adduced in the case. Learned counsel for the respondent cites Misri Lal Vs. Smt.Daulti Devi, AIR 1977 SC 3819, wherein it has been held that beneficary being neighbours of testarix looking after her in her last days is not a suspicious circumstance. In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and another Vs. Panchanan Banerjee, AIR 1995 SC 1684, it was held that deprivation of the natural heirs by the testator should not raise any suspicion, because the whole idea behind execution of Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The only point for consideration is as to whether the courts below have erred in relying upon unregistered Will, Exhibit P.1 executed by Sampuran Singh. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that such Will had in fact been executed by the testator out of his free volition by fully understanding the implication of the will executed by him and the execution of such will has been properly attested by at least two witnesses. In case of execution of a Will, where the natural heirs are excluded from inheritence, the court is to see as to whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the RSA No.845 of 1984 6 making of the will. To prove the execution of the Will in question, the plaintiffs examined number of witnesses. PW1 Hans Raj, deposed that on 22.5.1977, he scribed a Will on the instructions of Sampuran Singh. The deceased Sampuran Singh put his signatures on it in the presence of Ram Dhan, PW2 and Banta Ram, who had also put their signatures on it. This witness also deposed that the deceased used to live with Jarnail Singh, Mohinder Kaur, Sucha Singh and Kehar Singh. The version of Hans Raj, PW1 is corroborated by Ram Dhan, PW2 and Banta Ram, PW3. They also added that the plaintiffs used to render services to the deceased during his life time. The attesting witnesses as well scribe of the Will, Exhibit P.1 categorically deposed that Sampuran Singh was in sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the Will. The statements of these witnesses establish that the Will in question was signed by the deceased and they were present at the time of execution of the Will, Ex.P.1. Besides above, Gurbachan Singh, PW5, Dalip Singh, PW8, (Sarpanch of village Bassi Kikran), Shiv Dev Singh, PW9, Hakumat Rai, PW10 (Lambardar of village Bassi Kikran) and Kartar Singh, PW13 categorically deposed that the deceased Sampuran Singh used to reside with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs/respondents rendered services to him during his life time. It has also come in the deposition of PW8 Dalip Singh that the land was allotted to Sampuran Singh in his village and subsequently the same was cancelled and then he shifted to plaintiffs' village and lived with them till his death. The above discussion establishes that the evidence relating to the execution of the will is satisfactorily proved and it is also proved that the plaintiffs rendered services to the deceased Sampuran Singh during his life time. From the statements of said witnesses, it is also RSA No.845 of 1984 7 established that the deceased resided with the plaintiffs for about 20 years. It is admitted fact that Smt. Parkash Kaur (appellant) is sister's daughter of Sampuran Singh while Tara Singh (appellant in RSA No. 607 of 1984) is grandfather's brother's son. Sampuran Singh was 85 years of age at the time of death and required the services of somebody to look after him and perform his last rites. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants ever visited the deceased Sampuran Singh or rendered any service to him during his life time. Smt. Parkash Kaur (appellant) is a permanent resident of Delhi. She has admitted in her statement that she did not attend the cremation of Sampuran Singh, who died at the residents of plaintiff/respondents. It is well proved that the plaintiffs used to render service to the deceased during his life time and he spent about 20 years of his life with the plaintiffs. The intention of the testator Sampuran Singh was to execute the Will, Exhibit P1, to deprive of the natural heirs, who never looked after and served him during his old age from inheriting his estate. Therefore, the execution of the Will, Ex.P1, by Sampuran Singh in favour of the plaintiffs is a natural as well as a probable act. There is no suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. Both the courts below have rightly relied upon the Will, Ex.P1. All the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are the findings of fact which do not call for any interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. There is no scope to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts. As discussed above, it is well established that the Will, Exhibit RSA No.845 of 1984 8 P1 is genuine and valid document The findings as recorded by the learned courts below are based on cogent, convincing and correct appreciation of the facts and the evidences on record and warrants no interference by this Court. In view of the above, both the appeals are, hereby, dismissed. 26.4.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No