1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.384/1995 Shree Gurukul v. Satyavrita & Anr. Date of Judgment :: 13th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Vineet Sanadhya for Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the appellant. Mr. Anand Purohit, for the respondents. .... Late Shri Vritanand, in the year 1930, founded an educational institution in the name of Shree Gurukul, Pratapgarh and devoted his service to the institution till his death i.e. on 11.10.1980. One Shri Satyavrita claimed succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for the immovable properties referred below on basis of a will said to be executed Shri Vritanand on 19.9.1980:- 1.No.F/A-247630 P.O.36 C.P.O.A.F. 1000/-12 years certificate Register-17 Dated 12.12.59. 2.No.247629 P.O.C.P.O.N.36 Rs.1000/- 12 years saving certificate Register No.17 Dated 12.12.59. 3.No.247631 P.O.C.P.O.A.N.36 certificate 12 years Dated 12.12.59 for Rs.1000/-. 4.No.247632 P.O.C.P.O.A.N.No.36 certificate 1000/- 12 years Dated 12.12.59. 5.Punjab National Bank Limited Kankhal District Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh Rs.8000/-. 6.Punjab National Bank Kankhal U.P. Rs.741.23. 7.Sub Post Office Gurukul Pharmacy Kangri District Saharanpur Rs.8160.03, total Rs.20901.23. 2 In response to the notice issued, the present appellant that is “Shree Gurukul Chittorgarh” submitted objections and claimed for succession certificate on basis of a will said to be executed by Shri Vritanand on “Magh Poornima Samvat 2032”. Learned District Judge, Pratapgarh by judgment impugned dated 8.3.1995 rejected the application preferred by Shri Satyavrita and also rejected the claim made by present appellant for seeking succession certificate. No challenge to the order aforesaid dated 8.3.1995 is given by Shri Satyavrita, however, by instant appeal “Shree Gurukul” has questioned validity, propriety and correctness of the judgment impugned. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that by the will dated “Magh Poornima Samvat 2032” Late Shri Vritanand donated his entire property including movable properties subject matter of the application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act to Shree Gurukul, the institution established by him and to which Shri Vritanand served till his last breath. The will aforesaid was attested by Shri Satyakam and Shri Bheemsen Vedvagish and was also signed by Atmadev, the deed writer. As per learned counsel for the appellant the trial court erred while disbelieving testimony of Shri Atmadev, merely on the count that there were certain breaks in his service for Shree Gurukul. 3 Contesting the contention advanced by counsel for the appellant, it is stated by Shri Anand Purohit, counsel for Satyavrita, the respondent, that as a matter of fact the only will executed by Shri Vritanand is dated 19.9.1980 and, thus, the claim made by Shree Gurukul is ill-founded. However, no challenge to the judgment impugned dated 8.3.1995 is given by Shri Satyavrita, therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to accept the argument advanced by counsel for the respondent relating to the will dated 19.9.1980. On minute consideration of the judgment impugned and entire evidence available on record it is not in dispute that Shri Vritanand established Shree Gurukul in the year 1930 and was serving it uptil his death. The trial court while rejecting claim of the appellant observed that under the signatures of Shri Bheemsen Vedvagish and Satyakam, it is not mentioned that they put signatures as attesting witnesses. The trial court disbelieved testimony of Atmadev on two counts those are that Shri Atmadev was not an attesting witness and also that Atmadev was not in continuous employment of Shree Gurukul. The reasons given by the trial court to disbelieve Atmadev that he was not an attesting witness is of no consequence as it is well settled that the term “attested” means that a person has 4 signed the document by way of testimony of the fact that he saw it executed. Shri Atmadev, who typed the will and put his signatures on the will, cannot be denied to be an attested witness only being a writer or on the count that below his signatures it was not mentioned that he was an attesting witness. The another reason given by the trial court to disbelieve Atmadev is that he was not in continuous employment of Shree Gurukul. Testimony of Atmadev was examined as DW-2 and as per his statements Shri Vritanand signed will in his presence and that was attested by Shri Bheemsen and Satyakam in his presence. He also put his signatures on the will in presence of abovenamed persons. He further stated that Shri Satyakam died on 25.9.1989. Shri Atmadev in his statements has also stated that he was in employment of Shree Gurukul in the year 1959 and then in 1967. He was again in employment of Shree Gurukul continuously from 1973 to 1978. Relevant to note that the will aforesaid was executed on “Magh Poornima Samvat 2032”, meaning thereby that is somewhere in the year 1975-76. I failed to understand as to how the statements given by a person who was in employment of Shree Gurukul continuously for a period of about five years were not found trustworthy by the trial court. A person serving an institution for a period of five years and is otherwise of a normal conduct is not supposed to say anything wrong, if not proved otherwise. I do not find 5 anything wrong in the statements of Atmadev on basis of that his testimony can be disbelieved specially in the circumstances that the property for which succession certificate is claimed will go to an institution and not to any individual. In view of whatever discussed above, I am of considered opinion that this appeal deserves acceptance and, thus, is allowed. The judgment dated 8.3.1995 passed by learned District Judge, Pratapgarh is quashed to the extent it denies claim of appellant “Shree Gurukul Chittorgarh”. The claim of Shree Gurukul for seeking succession certificate for the properties in question is allowed. Accordingly, learned District Judge, Pratapgarh is directed to issue a succession certificate as per the provisions of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act relating to the properties in question in favour of “Shree Gurukul”, Chittorgarh. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.