Deepinder Singh Dhillon vs General Public

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this petition, petitioner-Deepinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate, has prayed that the probate of the last will and testament dated 1.10.1990 of Dr. Ran Singh Grewal who died on 21.5.1992 at House No.322, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh be granted to him as a named executor.

Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 have no objection to the grant of probate, whereas respondents Nos.2 and 5 namely Manmohan Singh Grewal and Jagdev Singh Grewal in their respective written statements are contesting the claim of the petitioner. In their respective written statements, they have stated that the deceased never executed any Will. They have also alleged that the properties of which probate is sought are not self-acquired properties of the deceased and as a matter of fact, Dr. Ran Singh Grewal and respondents Nos.2 to 6 constituted Joint Hindu family and for that matter, the deceased was not competent to execute the will. They have also stated that the property in question has been grossly under-valued and the petitioner be asked to pay court-fee on the market-value of the properties/assets in question.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 22.9.1993:

Whether the document of which probate is sought is a Will ?. OPP.

If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, "whether Dr. Ran Singh Grewal executed a valid Will dated 1.10.1990 in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 6. If so, its effect ? OPP.

Whether the properties of which probate is sought were self- acquired properties of the deceased ? OPP.

Whether deceased, Dr. Ran Singh Grewal and defendants Nos.2 to 6 constituted a joint Hindu Family as governed by Hindu Law. If so, its effect ? OPP.

Whether the property detailed in the alleged Will, except the amount of pension, was an ancestral property or Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of the deceased. If so, its effect ? OPR

Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR.

Whether the properties in dispute have been properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction. If not, its market-value? Onus on the parties.

However, vide order dated 11.11.1993, issues 3 to 6 were deleted and the remaining issues which remain to be decided are issues Nos. 1, 2 and 7.

Issues Nos. 1 and 2:

The following pedigree-table will facilitate a better understanding of the issues involved in the case:

Dr. Ran Singh retried from Punjab Civil Medical Service in the year 1971. He inherited agricultural land measuring 1-1/2 acres along with two residential plots in village Phalewal, District Ludhiana. Likewise in village Burj Hakim, District Ludhiana, he inherited land measuring 5-3/4 acres along with three residential plots, over one of which construction had been made. During the time he was in service, he acquired plot measuring 2089 yards on which he constructed House No.322, Sector 9, Chandigarh. The eldest of his three sons, namely Sukhdial Singh (respondent No.4 herein) went to Canada in 1965 -and since then he is residing there with his family. The youngest son, namely Jagdev Singh also went to Canada in 1957 and he too is staying there since then. After retirement of Dr. Ran Singh in 1971, middle one, namely Manmohan Singh along with his wife and daughter started residing with him in House No.322, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. However, because of some differences between them, Manmohan Singh vacated the house and shifted to government accommodation allotted to him/his wife. In 1988, Manmohan Singh and his wife persuaded Dr. Ran Singh to permit them to stay in House No.322, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. But after a month or so, Manmohan Singh and his wife again started having differences with Dr. Ran Singh and his wife Basant Kaur. Dr Ran Singh vide letter dated 3.3.1989 wrote to the Governor of Punjab that his daughter-in-law and granddaughter not only abused his wife, Basant Kaur, but also gave her fist blows and kicked her on legs. He requested the Governor to intervene and help him in getting the house vacated from his son, Manmohan Singh. He also addressed such like letters to the Legal Remembrance, U.T. Chandigarh and Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. As regards vacation of house from his son, the Administration advised him to seek the help of the Court, but regarding danger to his life and to that of his wife, action u/s 107/150 Cr. P.C. was initiated against Manmohan Singh and his wife. Dr. Ran Singh thereafter filed a suit for mandatory injunction for vacation of the house and the same was pending when Dr. Ran Singh died. The dispute to be decided in this petition is in regard to the execution and validity of the Will dated 1.10.1990 alleged to have been executed by Dr. Ran Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has proved the due execution of Will by producing one of the attesting witnesses of the Will, namely P.W. 2 Col. Gurbaksh Singh Brar. He further contended that the very fact that the Will is a registered document goes a long way to prove that the Will was executed by the deceased. In regard to excluding Manmohan Singh and Jagdev Singh from House No. 322, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, counsel contended that this cannot be taken to be a suspicious circumstance as in the earlier three registered Wills executed by the deceased, Manmohan Singh was excluded and Jagdev Singh too was excluded in Will dated 12.2.1990. Counsel referred to the correspondence between the deceased and the functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration in which the deceased had complained with regard to conduct of Manmohan Singh qua him and his wife. In order to show that the deceased had reasons to exclude Manmohan Singh from the property, he referred to the suit which the deceased had filed against him for getting the house vacated. In answer to these submissions, counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the Will set up by the petitioner is a forged and fictitious document. Counsel contended that the paper of page-2 of the Will is different from that of pages 1 and 3. He further contended that the typed matter of page 2 of the Will is typed from a different typewriter from which the typed matter of ages 1 and 3 was typed. He further contended that the report of R. W. 10. i.e. Document Expert, Sh. K.N. Prasad, has clearly proved on record that Will dated 1.10.1990, Exhibit P.8,is not only a forged and fictitious document, but the copy retained in the office of Sub Registrar, U.T. Chandigarh is also not the second copy of the Will set up by the petitioner. With regard to excluding of Jagdev Singh, counsel contended that neither any good reasons have been given in the Will nor the profounder has been able to satisfy as to why substantial benefit has been given to Sukhpal Singh and Harminder Kaur who never rendered any service or assistance to the deceased.

The question as to how the Will is to be proved has to be decided in the light of Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act and Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act. u/s 67 of the Evidence Act, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of that person must be proved to be in his handwriting and for proving such a handwriting the opinion of expert or of the person acquainted with the handwriting of that person are made relevant under Sections 45 and 47 of the said Act. Section 63 deals with the proof of execution of the document required by law to be attested and provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses has been called to prove its execution. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act deals with the testator''s testamentary capacity whereas Section 63 provides for special requirement of attestation of the Wills and it says that a Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will and each of the witnesses had signed the Will in the presence of the testator.

There is no doubt that if a Will has been registered that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness But the mere fact that a Will is a registered Will, is not by itself sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. Where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of profounder that the Will is a registered document or that it bears the signatures of testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time the Will was made or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. It is in connection with Wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the Court is last Will of the testator, the Court is called upon to decide a solemn question and about reason of suspicious circumstance the Court has to be satisfied fully that the Will has been validly executed by the testator. For this, see H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others,

In the light of the aforementioned principles, the evidence deserves to be appreciated. Will dated 1.10.1990 registered on 6.12.1990, Ex.P.8 is not a long but a three-page document. The first page refers to the execution of Will in supersession of three Wills dated 12.8.1988, 12.2.1989 and 12.2.1990. It also refers to disposition of land situated in two villages including residential plots to three sons in equal shares with the life interest to Basant Kaur, widow of the deceased. The second page of Will provides the following disposition :-

(i) House No.322, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh which has been described to be self-acquired property of the deceased, is to go to the eldest son, Sukhdial Singh and daughter, Harminder Kaur, in equal share;

(ii) Basant Kaur, widow of the deceased, is to have life interest besides being entitled to live in the house in the manner she likes. Further, she can rent out any portion of the house and is entitled to its rental proceedings;

(iii) The amount against F.D.R. dated 17.8.1990 for Rs.40.000/- in Punjab National Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh is to go to Jagdev Singh;

(iv) The amount lying in Savings Bank Account in State Bank of India in which pension was being deposited is to go to Basant Kaur; and

(v) All other moveable property which remained un-described is to go to Basant Kaur.

The second page also gives reasons for giving the house to Sukhdial Singh and Harminder Kaur and for disinheriting Manmohan Singh and Jagdev Singh. This page also contains the appointment of Deepinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate as executor of the Will. The last page of the Will describes only the signing of Will in the presence of witnesses and bears the signatures of the attesting witnesses and the deceased. For the facility of references, the third page is reproduced as under :-

The Testator has signed this Will in the presence of the witnesses who have signed hereunder in the presence of the Testator and the Testator further acknowledged the execution of the Will in presence of both the witnesses.

Executed at Chandigarh, this 6th day of December 1990. MARK - 2

Witness No. 1 Gurbaksh Singh Brar, Lt. Col. s/o Sh. Badan Singh 70, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh., Executants MARK X, Ran Singh Grewal s/o S Phuman Singh H.No.322, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

Witness No.2 Gurbaksh Singh,, Major General (Retd.) (GURBAKSH SINGH) 343, Sector 9-D" Chandigarh., MARKY, 1.10.1990 Drafted by Self Ran Singh Grewal.

The parties to this litigation have not raised any dispute"-with regard to land and residential plots situated in two villages. The contest is with regard to second page of the Will, i.e. house situated at Chandigarh. Manmohan Singh and Jagdev Singh have been totally excluded from inheriting this property. The reason given in the Will for excluding Manmohan Singh is that he and his wife had been maltreating the deceased and his wife. In order to prove that relations between them were not cordial, petitioner has brought enough evidence on record. Exhibits P-l, P-2, P-2/A, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-7, which is correspondence between the deceased and various functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration, clearly prove that the deceased had strained relations with Manmohan Singh. He had also filed civil suit, Ex.R-3/l-A, for getting the house vacated from Manmohan Singh. Previous to the Will, Exh.P-8, the deceased had allegedly executed three Wills dated 12.8.1988 (Mark D), 12.2.1989 (Mark E) and 12.2.1990 (Mark F). In the Will dated 12.8.1988, the house was divided into five portions; four portions were to go to three sons and a daughter and the fifth one was to go to Karanbir Singh, son of nephew of the deceased. In subsequent Will dated 12.2.1989, the house was to go to the eldest son, Sukhdial Singh who in turn was required to pay 1/ 3rd of market value to Jagdev Singh and 1/3rd to Harminder Kaur and in case he was not in a position to pay 1/3 rd market value each to Jagdev Singh and Harminder Kaur, the house was to be sold at the market value agreed to be accepted by all the three and the sale proceeds of the said house were to be shared by Sukhdial Singh, Jagdev Singh and Harminder Kaur in equal shares. Basant Kaur was to have life interest in the house and the same was to be sold only after her death. In the third-Will dated 12.2.1990 which was in supersession of previous two Wills, the house was to be Sold and l/5th of sale proceeds was to go to Basant Kaur, l/5th to Sukhdial Singh, l/5th to Harminder Kaur and l/5th to Jaswant Singh son of Jagdev Singh. I have noticed in the earlier part of the judgment that in the year 1988, Manmohan Singh and his wife persuaded the deceased to permit them to stay in the house and soon thereafter, they started having differences and in 1989, the deceased had started writing to the Governor and other officers of the Chandigarh Administration regarding the misbehaviour of his son and his wife towards him. It was for this reason that in Will dated 12.2.1989 (Mark E) and Will dated 12.2.1990 (Mark F), Manmohan Singh was totally excluded from inheriting the house which in the Will has been described to be the self acquired property of the deceased. Counsel for the petitioner thus is right in submitting that the deceased had reasons for not giving Manmohan Singh any share in the house.

The circumstance which calls for explanation is exclusion of Jagdev Singh. The reason given in the Will is that he is a simple man prone to be exploited by Manmohan Singh and his family, but his mother while appearing as P.W.5 gave a different reason, i.e. Jagdev Singh is a drunkard and he never gave any money. This, however, is not the reason for which Jagdev Singh has been excluded. It also deserves to be noticed that in Will dated 12.8.1988, (Mark D), Jagdev Singh was given a share in the house and similarly in Will dated 12.2.1989 (Mark E), Jagdev Singh was to have an equal share with Sukhdial Singh and Harminder Kaur. In Will dated 12.2.1989 (Mark F) share was given to Jaswant Singh son of Jagdev Singh. However, there is no explanation of any kin brought on record as to why the deceased excluded Jagdev Singh or his son from having any share in the house in Will Mark G, which is alleged to have been executed just after eight months of execution of Will dated 12.2.1990 (Mark F). The best person to explain the reason which led the deceased to change his mind for riot giving any share in the house to Jagdev Singh would have been Major Gen. Gurbaksh Singh who not only attested all the previous three Wins but also the Will in question, but for reasons best known to the petitioner, Major Gen. Gurbaksh Singh has not been examined. It is well established that whenever a Will is prepared and executed under circumstances which raise the suspicion of the Court, it lies on the profounder not merely to prove the execution of the Will, in the sense that it was signed by the testator, but also to adduce evidence which removes such suspicion and to satisfy the Court that the testator knew and approved of the contents of the Will. The existence of the material differences between the two Wills said to have been executed within a short interval is undoubtedly a circumstance calling for explanation. Burden lay on the profounder to offer an adequate explanation for the reasons or motives which led a testator to change his mind. In this case, the profounder have not discharged the burden which the law casts upon them. Although counsel for the petitioner contended that a sum of Rs.40,000/ - lying in Fixed Deposit Receipt has been given to Jagdev Singh, but in my view, that can hardly be regarded as fair and just.

The second circumstance for which no explanation has been given is with regard to the reason given in the Will for giving the house to Sukhdial Singh and Harminder Kaur. It is stated in the Will that 1/2 share in the house is being given to Sukhdial Singh for the services rendered by him to the deceased during 15 years of his prolonged illness and remaining 1/2 share to Harminder Kaur for the services to be rendered by her to the deceased and his wife. However, there is no evidence to show that Sukhdial Singh ever rendered any service to the deceased. As a matter of fact, the evidence which has been brought on record proves that Sukhdial Singh has been staying in Canada since 1956 and the deceased and his wife had gone only twice to Canada where they not only stayed with Sukhdial Singh but also with Jagdev Singh. It has come in the statement of R. W.5, Jagdev Singh that Sukhdial Singh had not attended the marriage of his sister. So much so, he had not come even after the death of his father to perform his last rites. Similarly, Harminder Kaur though during the life-time of the deceased had been staying in Chandigarh, but no evidence has been led to prove that any services were rendered by her to the deceased. More so, Sukhdial Singh and Harminder Kaur have not stepped into the witness- box to support the execution of the Will.

The third suspicious circumstance is with regard to date of execution of Will. In the petition as well as statement, it has been stated by Deepinder Singh Dhillon, P. W. 1 (executor) and in statement by Lt. Col. Gurbaksh Singh Brar, P.W.2, (one of the attesting witnesses) that the Will was executed on 1.10.1990, but the last page of the Will states "Executed at Chandigarh, this 6th day of December 1990". No explanation is forthcoming from P. W. 1 Deepinder Singh Dhillon, who allegedly was present at the time of execution and registration of the Will, that under what circumstances the date of execution of Will was changed from 1.10.1990 to 6.12.1990. P.W.2 Lt. Col. Gurbaksh Singh Brar tried to explain this circumstance by saying that this cutting was done in the office of Sub Registrar, U.T. Chandigarh. In order to test the correctness of the statement of P.W.2,1 minutely examined the third page of the Will with the help Of magnifying glass. I discovered that initially, word August" had been typed which was nabbed off and after rubbing was substituted by word "October" and that too was scored off with a pen to write word "December". From this, I am of the firm view that he third page was typed some time the month of August. 1990.

The fourth suspicious circumstance for which no explanation has been given is with regard to page 2 of the Will which is different from pages 1 and 3. The typed matter of page 2 of the Will is typed on a typewriter different from the one on which pages 1 and 3 were typed. The matter of first page of the Will is identical in all respects to that of Wills dated 12.2.1989 (Mark E) and 12.2.1990 (Mark F). A reading of second page of the Will in question which is bone of contention between the parties clearly shows that the same has not been drafted by the person who drafted the first and third pages of the Will. P. W. 1 in his cross-examination admitted that second page of the Will is different from first and third pages and is typed on a different typewriter. He further admitted that the had not prepared/drafted the Will. He thus has not stated as to who prepared and typed the second page of the Will. P.W.2 though admitted that second page on a different typewriter, corn of the Will is typed on different type writer, compared to pages 1 and 3, but tried to clarify by saying that since there were lot of cuttings on second page, the testator got it retyped. In cross-examination, he stated that he along with testator went to a Typing School in Sector 18, Chandigarh where the second page was got retyped. However, he could not name the typing school nor tell about the whereabouts of second page having cuttings. No evidence at all has been led as to who drafted the Will and who typed the first and third pages of the Will. The total typed matter on pages 1 and 3 being less than what is typed .on second page of the Will, it is not only improbable but unnatural that the deceased who was an old man of 80 years, would go all the way from Sector 9 to Sector 18 to get only second page of the Will retyped and not the remaining two pages.

The fifth suspicious circumstance is as to who wrote words "Drafted by self on page 3 of the Will. P. W.2-Lt. Col. G.S. Brar was not in a position to state as to who had written these words. The words "Drafted by self admittedly are not in the handwriting of the deceased. No evidence at all has been led as to who drafted the Will and who typed it out. The second page of the Will uses trite legal jargon and has been obviously drafted by a lawyer, but neither P.W. 1 (petitioner) nor P.W.2 Lt. Col. G.S. Brar (the only attesting witness examined in this case) have given any explanation in this regard.

The sixth suspicious circumstance is regarding the signature of the deceased on second page of the Will. R. W.5 Jagdev Singh in his statement admitted that first and third pages of the Will bear the signatures of his father, but has disputed the signature of his father on the second page of the Will. R.W.10 K.N. Prasad, Document Expert who examined the signatures on Will, Ex.P.8, stated that the signature on second page, Mark X-2, have not been written by the person who put the remaining signatures on the Will marked as X-l and X-3 to X-6. He proved his report as Exh. R.W.10/A and demonstrative photo-chart containing photograph as Ex.R.W,10/B and negatives as Exhs. R. W. 10/Crto C6. Though he was cross-examined at length, but he maintained that he has given in his report the symptoms of forgery which he found on comparison with regard to presence of tremors in the disputed signature, X-2, due to forgery. He denied that the signature, X-2, is not the forged signature and tallies with signatures, X-1, X-3 to X-6. In his report, he found as many as 15 dissimilarities in signature, X-2 when compared with signatures, X-l and X-3 to X-6. For the facility of reference, the same are reported as under :-

(i) Relative placing of the initial of the body curve with respect to the eye-let in the letter ''R'' is lower placed in the signature marked X-2 but in the signature marked X-l. X-3 to X-6 it is higher placed.

(ii) In the signature X-2 the body curve touches the staff of the letter but in the signatures marked X-l, X-3 to X-6 the body curve never to lies the staff of the letter. The shape of the body curve is different in the signature marked X-2 compared with those marked X-l, X-3 to X-6.

(iii) The terminal of the staff of the letter is relatively large and curved in the signature marked X-2 whereas in the signatures marked X-1 and X-3 lo X-6 ft J terminal of the letter is small and not so curved as observed in X-2.

(iv) The body curve and the staff of the letter ''a'' in the words "''Rani" and "Grewal" are connected with an eye-let formation at their junction signature marked X-2 but not in the signatures marked X-l and X-3 to X-6.

(v) Relative placing of the base of the connecting stroke in between the letters "a'' and n'' in the word "Ran" is higher placed with respect to the foot of the left-staff of the letter n'' in the signature marked X-2 as compared to that in the signatures marked X-l and X-3 to X-6.

(vi) Relative spacing in between the words "Ran" and "Singh" is more in the signature marked X-2 as compared to that in the signatures marked X-l -and X-3 to X-6

(vii) Shape of the upper curve of the letter S'' is different in between the signatures mark X-2 and X-l. X-3 to X-6.

(viii)The direction of the terminal of the letter "S'' is in the left downward direction in the signature marked -''. but not in the signatures marked X-l and X-3 to X-6.

(ix) In the signature marked X-2 the letter n'' is written in twepen operations -in the first operation the left staff of the letter is written with a retrace and there is an unnatural penlift at the top of the retrace stroke and in the second operation the letter is written afresh in the word "Singh". But in the signatures marked X-l and X-3 to X-6 this letter is written in one pen operation. The direction of the terminal of the letter is in the left downward direction in the signature X-2 but in the signatures marked X-l, X-3 to X-6 the terminal of the letter ends in the right upward direction.

(x) In the signatures marked X-l, X-3 to X-6 the i-dot is written like a slanting bar above the letter combinations'' but no such i-dot is formed in the signature marked X-2.

(xi) There is an unnatural pen-lift at the top of the loop formed in the staff of the letter in the signature marked X-2 but no such pen-lift is observed at the corresponding point in the signatures marked X-l and X-3 to X-6.

(xii) Relative spacing in between the letter "h'' of the word "Singh" and the letter ''G'' of the word "Grewal" is more in the signature marked X-2 as compared to that in the signatures marked X-l and X-3 to X-6.

(xiii) The letter ''r'' is written in top knot formation in the signatures X-l and X-3 to X-6 but in the signature marked X-2 it is written in bottom knot formation.

(xiv) The shape of the initial part of the eye-let in the body of the letter "c'' is curved in the signature marked X-2 but it is straight in the signatures marked X-l and X-3 to X-6.

(xv) The connecting stroke joining, the letters ''w'' in the words "Grewal" is garlanded in shape in the signature marked X-l and X-3 to X-6 but in the signature marked X-2 it is not so.

It is no doubt true that the approach of the Court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should to be proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. In the context of reliability of the opinion given by the handwriting expert, the observations of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. v. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and Others, AIR 1972 SC 2100. may be noticed:-

A handwriting expert is a competent witness whose opinion evidence is recognised as relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act and has not been equated to the class of evidence of an accomplice. It would, therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion evidence with suspicion but the correct approach would be to weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of his opinion would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded. But the court cannot afford to overlook the fact that the science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the science of identification ox finger-prints; courts have, therefore, been wary in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence and have looked for corroboration but that is not to say that it is a rule of prudence of general application regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of expert evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but the court has to decide in each case on its own merits what weight it should attach to the opinion of the expert.

In the present case, R.W.5, Jagdev Singh has admitted that first and third pages of Will, Ex.P.8, bear the signatures of the deceased. The hand-writing expert has compared the disputed signature on page 2 with admitted signatures on pages 1 and 3 and has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the signature on page 2 has not been written by the person who put his signatures on pages 1 and 3. K.N. Prasad, Hand-writing Expert, has an experience of more than 38 years in the field of Forensic Science. He joined the profession with his appointment in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh. He worked in that laboratory as an Expert upto January, 1973. Thereafter, he joined Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh consequent upon his selection by the Union Public Service Commission as Junior Scientific Officer (Documents). He worked in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh upto October, 1986 when he took his retirement. After retirement, he started his own practice as Document and Forensic Science Documents Expert at Chandigarh. His statement when read with his report inspires confidence and I am of the view that K.N. Prasad is a competent, reliable and dependable witness and his report deserves to be accepted.

The seventh circumstance which calls for explanation is in regard to copy of Will maintained in the office of Sub Registrar, U.T. Chandigarh. R.W.9, Amar Nath, Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, U.T. Chandigarh deposed from the summoned record that second copy of the Will which is required to be maintained in the office of Sub Registrar is a Xerox copy. He conceded that the other documents in the register brought by him are not Xerox copies but second typed copies of the documents. He further admitted that at Mark "A'' and ''B'' in the copy, the signatures of Ran Singh Grewal are in pen whereas on page 3 at mark ''X'' the signatures of Ran Singh Grewal are in Xerox and the handwriting beneath it is also Xerox, whereas writing as well as signatures at mark ''Y'' are in the pen. The signatures of attesting witnesses on page 2 are in Xerox. He in his cross-examination stated that office does not accept Xerox copy of the Will and in case the person brings one copy of the Will then the practice is to ask-the said person to bring the second typed copy. He stated that without second typed copy the Will is not registered. He further stated that he does not know why Xerox copy instead of typed copy was accepted. In this context, the report of document expert also assumes importance. The document expert had also inspected the copy maintained in the office of Sub Registrar. On inspection, he noted that "the typed matter and signature "Ran Singh Grewal" on the obverse side of page 1 and the typed matter, signature "Ran Singh Grewal" above the word "Executant" and signatures of the two witnesses on the obverse side of page 3 of the copy in the office of the Sub Registrar, U.T. Chandigarh are Xerox copies but the signature "Ran Singh Grewal" on page 2 of this copy of the Will is written with fiber tip pen. The typed matter of page 2 of this copy of the Will is also typed from a different typewriter than that used for typing the typed matter of obverse sides of page No. 1 and page No.3 of this copy of Will." On reading the statement of R.W.9 along with the report of Expert, it is apparent that second page of the Will is a substituted one.

The suspicious circumstances enumerated above are in my view sufficient to discard the Will. Petitioner in his evidence has offered no explanation to any of these circumstances. He has totally failed to discharge the heavy onus of explaining the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and of establishing that the document which he propounded was the last Will and testament of Dr. Ran Singh Grewal. Thus, issues Nos. 1 and 2 are decided against the petitioner.

Issue No.7:

P.W.I Deepinder Singh Dhillon, in his statement valued the property at Rs.7,33,029/-. The contesting respondents have neither disputed the valuation put by the petitioner nor have they led any evidence to show that valuation put by the petitioner is wrong. In this view of the matter, it is held that the property in dispute has been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and Jurisdiction. Issue No.7 thus, is decided in favour the petitioner.

In view of findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2, this petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.