Dauli Alias Dulla Singh vs Bachan Singh

J.L Gupta, J.—Bhagwan Kaur widow of Ishar Singh owned certain property On May 22,1966, she executed a will in favour of her brother and an attorney, Bachan Singh. She died on June 26, 1966. On her death, mutation in respect of her agricultural land was entered on the basis of the will Ex. DA in favour of Bachan Singh. The collaterals of Ishar Singh (husband of Bhagwan Kaur) filed a suit for possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Their appeal also having met the same fate, they have come to this Court in the present second appeal.

I have heard Mr. R.K. Battas, Learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Amarjeet Marken, Learned Counsel for the respondents.

Mr. Battas contends that the matter in which the Will has been written and the fact that the two attesting witnesses are not only from the village of Bachan Singh but also his relations caused a serious doubt about the genuine ness of the Will. He further contends that the scribe of the Will Mohinder Singh, DW-5 is from a different village and his presence at the time of the writing of the Will is highly suspicious. On these premises, the Learned Counsel contends that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below cannot be sustained.

The Will has been produced on record as Ex-DA. It is duly attested by DW-1, Jangir Singh and DW-3, Prem Singh. Further, it is established on the record that Bachan Singh was not only the brother of Bhagwan Kaur but was also her attorney. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellants that Bachan Singh had been even selling her property. In such a situation, it is safe to assume that Bachan Singh was close to Bhagwan Kaur, She did not commit anything highly unnatural in preferring her brother to the collaterals of her husband. The discrepancies pointed out by the counsel for the appellants in the statements of various witnesses are not only minor but are in fact symbolic of the fact that they were making their statements correctly and minor discrepancies occurred on account of lapse of time and memory. Otherwise, I find nothing suspicious about the document.

Consequently, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The appeal is wholly lacking in merit. It is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.