Case: Jarnail Singh and Ors Vs. Bhagwanti (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors

of the said Will nor was he on visiting terms with him. It was admitted that the only relationship that existed between the parties was that of co-villagers. It was also admitted that Jagan Nath was illiterate. DW-3 vaguely put forth the date of execution to be somewhere 11 years ago. 16. The law regarding proof of valid Will is well settled by this Court in catena of judgments. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 mandates that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses. As per Section 68 of the Evidence Act if only one attesting witness is alive the execution of the Will can be proved by only one attesting witness subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. In this case the only attesting witness DW-3 Sadhu Singhs evidence does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court and more so it creates suspicion in the mind of the Court with regard to execution and genuineness of the Will. Coupled with this the evidence of Defendant Jarnail Singh created all the more cloud on the execution of Will. Jarnail Singh deposed that in lieu of services rendered by him Jagan Nath executed the Will. But the cross examination of Jarnail Singh reveals that he was in Army from the year 1960-1979, whereas the Will was executed in the year 1970. In view of the same it appears highly improbable that Jarnail Singh had an opportunity to render any service to Jagan Nath. Apart from Jarnail Singh none of the other family members entered into the witness box and gave statement in support of services rendered by them. Moreover evidence reveals that Jagan Nath was a Sarpanch of the village and owned 12 Killas of land. Hence, it is highly unbelievable that he depended on Defendants who are neither related to Jagan Nath nor even belongs to the same community. 17. This Court in the case of Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 365 , held that: It is trite law that execution of a Will must be held to have been proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the will are satisfied but the will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances. When such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumptive evidences also. 18. The evidence of the Defendants and their conduct create number of suspicious circumstances around the Will which are detailed in the judgment of Trial Court & first appellate court. The Defendants could not prove the due execution of the Will either as mandated under the Indian Succession Act or as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. 19. In the pending appeal before us the Appellants wanted to mark certain additional documents in support of the execution of the Will. We are not inclined to look into those documents as this Court generally will not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of three courts unless there are special circumstances warranting interference of this Court. The Appellants were not able to convince this Court that the findings of the Courts below are perverse, contrary to settled legal position or grave injustice has been done in view of non-consideration of important piece of evidence. We are in total agreement with the Courts below that the Defendants failed to prove the execution and genuineness of the Will and such a finding does not call for any interference from this Court. This issue is answered against the Appellants/Defendants. 20. In response to Issue No. 2, on this aspect, the Trial Court has held that the Plaintiffs could prove the relationship with Jagan Nath and they are entitled for possession of the suit Schedule property. But the 1st appellate Court has arrived at a different finding that the Plaintiffs were not able to prove that they are granddaughters of Kirpo and whether Kirpo was real sister of Mangal who was father of Jagan Nath. On the contrary, High Court has observed that Jagan Nath was undisputedly owner of the suit property and when the Will in favour of Defendants is not proved, then Plaintiffs as cognates, inherited the suit property from Jagan Nath and became owner thereof and are therefore entitled to seek possession of the suit property from the Defendants. Whereas, admittedly Defendants have no relationship with Jagan Nath. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that the High Court erred in reversing the finding of fact by the appellate court which the High Court ought not have interfered with. We are unable to appreciate the argument advanced on this aspect as the conclusion of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is not only based on the admission made by the Defendants with regard to the relationship of Plaintiffs with Jagan Nath, but also taking into consideration the independent Will dated 17.04.1953 executed by Khusi Ram - cousin brother of Jagan Nath in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 and 3, the relationship between the Plaintiffs and other family members was clearly mentioned and the subsequent mutations carried out pursuant to the Will strengthen the case of the Defendants. The pedigree table also reveals that Khusi Ram and Jagan Nath have died issueless which is an admitted fact thereby leaving Kirpo as the only existing branch of the family. But since Kirpo and her son Janti Ram have predeceased Jagan Nath, the Respondents/plaintiffs are the nearest cognates of Jagan Nath who had no surviving agnate. The High Court was perfectly right in interfering with this question of fact more so when the opinion of the 1st appellate court was perverse and contrary to material available on record. Issue is accordingly answered against Appellants/Defendants. 21. In the light of the above findings on issues 1 and 2 we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree of the High Court requires no interference from this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. The law regarding proof of valid Will is well settled by this Court in catena of judgments. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 mandates that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses. As per Section 68 of the Evidence Act if only one attesting witness is alive the execution of the Will can be proved by only one attesting witness subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. In this case the only attesting witness DW-3 Sadhu Singhs evidence does not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court and more so it creates suspicion in the mind of the Court with regard to execution and genuineness of the Will. Coupled with this the evidence of Defendant Jarnail Singh created all the more cloud on the execution of Will. Jarnail Singh deposed that in lieu of services rendered by him Jagan Nath executed the Will. But the cross examination of Jarnail Singh reveals that he was in Army from the year 1960-1979, whereas the Will was executed in the year 1970. In view of the same it appears highly improbable that Jarnail Singh had an opportunity to render any service to Jagan Nath. Apart from Jarnail Singh none of the other family members entered into the witness box and gave statement in support of services rendered by them. Moreover evidence reveals that Jagan Nath was a Sarpanch of the village and owned 12 Killas of land. Hence, it is highly unbelievable that he depended on Defendants who are neither related to Jagan Nath nor even belongs to the same community.18. The evidence of the Defendants and their conduct create number of suspicious circumstances around the Will which are detailed in the judgment of Trial Court & first appellate court. The Defendants could not prove the due execution of the Will either as mandated under the Indian Succession Act or as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.19. In the pending appeal before us the Appellants wanted to mark certain additional documents in support of the execution of the Will. We are not inclined to look into those documents as this Court generally will not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of three courts unless there are special circumstances warranting interference of this Court. The Appellants were not able to convince this Court that the findings of the Courts below are perverse, contrary to settled legal position or grave injustice has been done in view of non-consideration of important piece of evidence. We are in total agreement with the Courts below that the Defendants failed to prove the execution and genuineness of the Will and such a finding does not call for any interference from this Court. This issue is answered against the Appellants/Defendants.20. In response to Issue No. 2, on this aspect, the Trial Court has held that the Plaintiffs could prove the relationship with Jagan Nath and they are entitled for possession of the suit Schedule property. But the 1st appellate Court has arrived at a different finding that the Plaintiffs were not able to prove that they are granddaughters of Kirpo and whether Kirpo was real sister of Mangal who was father of Jagan Nath. On the contrary, High Court has observed that Jagan Nath was undisputedly owner of the suit property and when the Will in favour of Defendants is not proved, then Plaintiffs as cognates, inherited the suit property from Jagan Nath and became owner thereof and are therefore entitled to seek possession of the suit property from the Defendants. Whereas, admittedly Defendants have no relationship with Jagan Nath. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that the High Court erred in reversing the finding of fact by the appellate court which the High Court ought not have interfered with. We are unable to appreciate the argument advanced on this aspect as the conclusion of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is not only based on the admission made by the Defendants with regard to the relationship of Plaintiffs with Jagan Nath, but also taking into consideration the independent Will dated 17.04.1953 executed by Khusi Ram - cousin brother of Jagan Nath in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 and 3, the relationship between the Plaintiffs and other family members was clearly mentioned and the subsequent mutations carried out pursuant to the Will strengthen the case of the Defendants. The pedigree table also reveals that Khusi Ram and Jagan Nath have died issueless which is an admitted fact thereby leaving Kirpo as the only existing branch of the family. But since Kirpo and her son Janti Ram have predeceased Jagan Nath, the Respondents/plaintiffs are the nearest cognates of Jagan Nath who had no surviving agnate. The High Court was perfectly right in interfering with this question of fact more so when the opinion of the 1st appellate court was perverse and contrary to material available on record. Issue is accordingly answered against Appellants/Defendants.21. In the light of the above findings on issues 1 and 2 we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree of the High Court requires no interference from this Court