Inder Singh (Deceased) and another vs Sukhminder Singh and others

B.S. Yadav, J.—The dispute is with respect to the inheritance of Puran Singh who died on 10th March, 1963. After his death mutation was sanctioned in favour of Ajaib Singh Defendant on the basis of registered will dated 3rd August, 1960 executed by Puran Singh. Ajaib Singh even entered into possession of the land. Thereupon the Plaintiffs Inder Singh and Ajmer Singh filed the instant suit for possession of the land left by Puran Singh. It was inter alia averred by them that Inder Singh Plaintiff had been adopted by Puran Singh and a formal deed of adoption had been executed by the adopter, got it registered. On 1st March, 1963 Puran Singh executed a will (Exhibit P. 2) in favour of both the Plaintiffs bequeathing his property to them. As this was the last will and testemant of Puran Singh, therefore, they were entitled to the land. The Defendant contested the suit. He denied Inder Singh''s adoption by Puran Singh. He also described the will propounded by the Plaintiffs as a forged document. He claimed that Puran Singh had executed a valid will (Exhibit D. 1) in his favour on 3rd August, 1960.

The other pleas taken by the parties are not material for the pur-purpose of disposal of this appeal. The learned trial court held that Puran Singh had adopted Inder Singh Plaintiff, who was his nephew. It was further held that the will Exhibit P. 2 dated 1st March, 1963 was validly executcd-by Puran Singh in favour of the Plaintiffs. It was further held that the will Exhibit D. 1 dated 3rd August, 1960 by Puran Singh in favour of Ajaib Singh shall be deemed to have been cancelled by the subsequent will. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'' suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendant filed an appeal which was heard by learned District Judge, Rupnagar. He held that the will Exhibit P. 2 propounded by the Plaintiffs was not a genuine document. Before him the validity of the will Exhibit D. 1 dated 3rd August, 1960 was not challenged. He also held that Inder Singh was not treated by Puran Singh as his adopted son and mere execution of the deed of adoption would not establish the adoption under custom. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and dismissed the suit. The Plaintiffs have now come to this Court in second appeal.

The main argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants was that the conclusion reached by the learned District Judge that the genuineness of the will Exhibit P. 2 has not been proved is based upon conjectures. Before we examine the reasons advanced by the learned Judge for holding that the will in question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, I may quote here H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, , wherein their Lordships remarked as follows:

x x x X X X

Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator''s mind and his signatures as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.

There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signatures of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounders case that the signature in question is the signature of the testatator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testators''s mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated ; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator ; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural; improbable or unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances ; or the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator''s free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy ; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged. Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator-

Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence.

Therefore for determining the validity of the will, Exhibit P. 2, propounded by the Plaintiff, the above observations will have to be kept in view.

Puran Singh who had executed the will had a brother named Gian Singh. The Plaintiffs Inder Singh and Ajmer Singh are the sons of Gian Singh. The Plaintiffs had another brother named Balam Singh who died during the life time of Puran Singh. On 3rd August 1960 Puran Singh executed a will Exhibit D. 1 bequeathing the entire property in favour of his own wife Ishar Kaur and Ajaib Singh Defendant on the condition that Ishar Kaur would not be also to alienate the property and after her death, her share would pass on to Ajaib Singh. This will was got duly registered. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the said will had been revoked by Puran Singh by executing will Exhibit P. 2 on Ist March 1963 in their favour.

Puran Singh executant was resident of village Bela Lal Singh. The will Exhibit P. 2 purports to have been scribed by one Shiv Dutt Singh who has not been examined by the Plaintiffs. However, it is in evidence that Shiv Dutt Singh did not belong to village Bela Lal Singh. The will is attested by Teja Singh P. W. 2 and Hira Singh, P. W. 3. The former witness is of village Mirpur and the latter of village Chandpurt The learned lower appellate court has rightly held that it is really surprising that no person of village Bela Lal Singh had been associated in the execution of the Will.

Another suspicious cricumstance taken into consideration by the learned District Judge is that Shiv Dutt Singh, scribe, is a man of doubtful auntecedents. As admitted by Ajmer Singh Shiv Dutt Singh had scribed a will purporting to have been executed by one Ram Kaur. That will was the subject matter of litigation. The Subordinate Judge, Una. vide judgment. Exhibit D. 3 had held that the will was highly suspicious and it was, therefore, held not to be a valid will. It will not be out of place to mention that Ajmer Singh Plaintiff was an attesting witness of that will. He had also appeared as a witness in that case and he was disbelieved. This circumstance clearly shows that Shiv Dutt Singh was earlier known to Ajiner Singh Plaintiff. That appears to be the reason that for fabricating the will Exhibit P. 2 Shiv Dutt Singh was called and as Ajmer Singh had a hand in fabricating of this will, therefore, he also got a share under this will. As noticed earlier, the case of Inder Singh, Plaintiff was that he had been adopted by Puran Singh. If Puran Singh was to revoke the earlier will Exhibit D. 1 to make Inder Singh the receipient of his bounty, being his adopted son then there appears to be no reason why he would have given any share in his property to Ajmer Singh. It would not be out of place to mention here that in Exhibit P. 2 Inder Singh has not been described by Puran Singh as his adopted son. Incase he wanted to benefit the sons of his brother Gian Singh then he would not have executed the will only in favour of the living sons of Gian Singh but would have included Ajaib Singh also as a legatee.

The Defendant also examined D. W. 9 Sh. K. S. Puri, hand-writing expert, who after comparing the disputed signture of Puran Singh on the will Exhibit P. 2, with his proved signatures on certain document, had opined that the disputed signature purporting to be of Puran Singh on will Exhibit P. 2 was not of Puran Singh. He was cross-examined at length and there is nothing on the record to show that his opinion is in any way incorrect. The lower appellate Court has also taken that circumstance into consideration. It will also not be out of place to mention that trial Court discarded the evidence of Sh. K S. Puri merely on the ground that the opinion of an expert about the hand-writing of a person is not con-elusive as the science of hand-writing is not fairly accurate. It was not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence of Sh. K. S. Puri. If the court feels any doubt with regard to the opinion of the hand-writing expert, it can itself examine the disputed signature with the admitted or proved signature of the person concerned.

The District Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that Teja Singh P. W. 2 one of the attesting witnesses of the will had admitted that he had been summoned from the village by Inder Singh, Plaintiff. However, the said Plaintiff in his examination-in-Chief had the audacity to controvert the statement of Teja Singh. Teja Singh had been called by the propounder of the will and the District Judge had taken into consideration that fact and has held that the will was surrouned by suspicious circumstances because the propounder had acquired the property of the testator under the will

The District Judge has also discussed the statement of Teja Singh, P. W. 2 and Hira Singh, P. W. 3 and has found them unreliable.

In the light of the above discussion it cannot be said that the judgment of the District Judge is based upon conjectures. On the other hand, I find that the reasons given by him for discarding the will Exhibit P. 2 are reasonable. Accordingly I find no force in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.