Gurdev Singh Alias Gurdev Chand vs Pritam Kaur and Other

R.N. Mittal, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge Exercising powers of District Judge, Bhatinda, under the Indian Succession Act), dated 15-6-1981, granting succession certificate in favour of Shrimati Pritam Kaur and Smt. Krishna Devi, Petitioners.

Briefly the facts are that the property No. 3433, situated on Power House Road, Bhatinda, belonged to Mohan Lal alias Mohan Singh, who died on 20-5-1977 at Bhatinda, leaving Smt. Pritam Kaur Petitioner No. 1 his widow and Smt. Krishna Devi Petitioner No. 2 his adopted daughter. An amount of Rs. 7,710/- on acceunt of rent of the property was lying deposited in the office of the Income Tax Office, Bhatinda. It is further stated that the Department had spent an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Mohan Lal was liable to pay that amount to it. They further stated that the Petitioners were the sole-heirs of Mohan Lal and were entitled to the succession certificate in respect of the aforesaid amount.

The petition was contested by Smt. Bhag Wanti and Smt Dsvki on the ground that they were the sisters of the deceased and the Petitioners were not related to him. Gurdev Chand and Vidya Devi contested the petition on the ground that Mohan Lal had executed a will in their favour on 24-12-1976. They pleaded that in view of the will, they were entitled to the amount in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Who are the heirs of Mohan Lal alias Mohan Singh deceased ?

Relief.

The learned trial Court held that the Petitioners were the widow and daughter of the deceased and Smt. Bhagwanti and Devki were his sisters. It, however, held that the: will propounded by Gurdev Chand and Vidya Devi was not a genuine will and that it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, it granted succession certificate in favour of the Petitioners. Gurdev Chand and Vidya Devi hare come up in appeal to this Court.

Shri H.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the Appellants has challenged the findings of the trial Court regarding the execution of the will. He contends that the will has been duly proved and there are no circumstances to hold that it was not a geauine document.

I have duly considered the argument but regret my inability to accept the same In order to prove the will, the Appellants produced Nidhan Singh (RW 1) scribe and Jangir Singh (RW2) attesting witness Nidhan Singh (RW 1) is the deed-writer, but be did not produce the deed-writer''s register, wherein the extracts of the document scribed by him were maintained That throws a doubt, whether the will was scribed at the instance of Mohan Lal testator. The witness Jangir Singh belongs to another village and his presence at the time of execution of the will is highly doubtful. Harnam Singh the other attesting witness has not been produced by the Appellants for the reasons best known to them. The signatures on the will also do not appear to be those of Mohan Singh. Ex. P1 it the Photostat copy of passport and bears the signatures of Mohan Singh They do not tally with the signatures On the will. It is further relevant to point out that the widow and the daughter have not been given anything by the will No reasons have been given for depriving them of his property by the testator. It is also not established that the testator had not cordial relations with the Respondents. The Appellants also took active part at the time of executing the will. The aforesaid suspicious circumstances have not been dispelled by any reliable evidence led by the Appellants. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court that the will is not a genuine document is correct and I affirm the same For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.