Gurdip Singh vs Bhagwan Kaur

Amrik Singh Pooni, IAS.,

This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 13.6.1988 of Commissioner Ferozepur Division.

Facts briefly are that the Mutation No. 2425 relating to the inheritance of one Dan Singh S/o Boor Singh of village Wara Bhai Ka, who died on 8.9.1985, was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Ferozepur in favour of Gurdip Singh s/o Ujagar Singh on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 9.7.1979. The claim of Bhagwan Kaur w/o Dan Singh was turned down. The Collector Ferozepur accepted the appeal filed by Bhagwan Kaur vide order dated 30.7.1987, and sanctioned the mutation in her favour by rejecting the unregistered Will. The appeal of Gurdip Singh was rejected by the Commissioner and he has come up in revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the AC Ist Grade had rightly ignored to the claim of Bhagwan Kaur who was not having good relations with her husband and was, therefore, excluded by him from his inheritance by executing a will in favour of the petitioner. In this regard the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that a sale deed executed by Dan Singh in favour of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent Bhagwan Kaur through a civil suit which was decreed in her favour and in which she received from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 40,000/ (Forty thousand) in the court of the District Judge. It is contended that in this suit she admitted that she is not living with Dan Singh. The learned counsel contends that Dan Singh lived with the petitioner who was his nephew, and who served him and even performed his last rites. The will his been duly proved by examining it scribe and a witness to it. There were, therefore no reasons for considering this will a suspicious document.

I have carefully considered the plea of the learned counsel and have gone through the record of the case. In my considered opinion, the will dated 9.7.1979 is not free from doubt. The first suspicious circumstances about the will is that it was scribed on 9.7.1979 and barely 20 days after the event Dan Singh sold some land to the petitioner who was beneficiary of the will. It was in respect of this sale that the petitioner paid Rs. Forty thousand (40,000/) to the respondent following the civil suit filed by her. It is strange indeed that a person who was supposed to succeed to the entire inheritance of Dan Singh, should purchase land from him so soon after the alleged execution of will in his favour. Again evidence has come on record that Gurdip Singh petitioner was a tenant under Dan Singh. Yet after the execution of the alleged will, Dan Singh gave his land to another person for cultivation. It cannot, therefore, be said that the will dated 9.7.1979 is totally free from doubt. In my considered opinion, if there is the slightest doubt about the genuineness of an unregistered will, the proper course for the Revenue Officers is to ignore such a document and leave the claimant to establish his claim through a civil court of competent jurisdiction. I see no lacuna in the findings of the Collector and the Commissioner. The revision petition is dismissed. Announced.