R.S.A. No. 4724 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 4724 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 31, 2011 Ranvir Singh @ Nirmal Singh …..Appellant Vs. Gurdeep Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Controversy regarding the inheritance of the share of the property left by Puran Singh in context to his two registered Wills dated November 17, 1997 and August 1, 2002 has been settled by the Courts below by giving a concurrent finding of fact that deceased Puran Singh had earlier executed a registered Will dated November 17, 1997 bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiff as well as in favour of defendants but by virtue of subsequent Will Ex.D1 dated August 1, 2002, the property was R.S.A. No. 4724 of 2010 (O&M) [2] bequeathed in favour of defendants Gurdeep Singh and Nirmal Singh both sons of Swaran Singh. Seen in context to the placement of the parties in pedigree table, both stand at par in relationship to the deceased. The second registered Will in favour of defendant- respondents makes a reference of the first Will besides containing a photograph of the testator. Counsel for the appellant has tried to challenge the validity of the dictum of Courts below regarding Will Ex.D1 by contending that the most important suspicious circumstance that the beneficiary was present at the time of execution of the Will of Puran Singh has been ignored by the Courts below. Counsel has argued that the Will has not been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and witness Mam Chand had not specifically stated that the Will was ever signed in his presence and in the presence of other witness. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the appellant and I am of the view that the Courts below after fair appreciation of the evidence have arrived at a conclusion that the Will Ex.D1 is a duly registered document made by deceased Puran Singh four years prior to his death i.e. in the year 2002 while he was maintaining good health and the second Will cancelling the first one was not the result of any conversion or pressure on the testator. No doubt, the presence of beneficiary at the time of execution of Will Ex.D1 is apparent from the endorsement at the back of the Will and the photograph of the testator and beneficiary existing on Ex.D1. No doubt the presence of beneficiary is one of the suspicious circumstances R.S.A. No. 4724 of 2010 (O&M) [3] which is required to be explained by the person claiming benefits under the Will. But in the present case, mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of the execution of the Will is not a fact which has been tried to be concealed by the beneficiary. Mere presence of beneficiary will not in all cases tentamount to a suspicious circumstance warranting the cancellation of the document but whether the presence of the beneficiary and his relationship to the testator had been a factor influencing the wish of a testator is also required to be brought on the record. In the present case, while arriving at a concurrent finding of fact that the Will Ex.D1 has been a duly executed document, the circumstance of one of the beneficiaries defendant- respondent will not ipso facto make Will Ex.D1, an invalid document, as it has not been established by cogent evidence that the beneficiary has tried to pressurize the testator to execute the document in his favour under the Will having been established in accordance with law and the same being registered document, read with other circumstances do not warrant any interference in the concurrent finding of fact. Dismissed. January 31, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE