Kewal Krishan and Others vs Gurdev Chand

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—The Plaintiff Respondents had brought this suit for possession claiming that they are the natural heirs of Sheela Wanti, deceased & the Defendant-Appellants are in illegal possession of the property in dispute as they have nothing to do with the succession of Sheela Wanti deceased. House No. ND-132, situated in Mohalla Bikrampura, Jullundur City belonged to Ram Partap uncle of the Plaintiff-Respondents. He died somewhere in the year 1962-63. On his death Smt. Sheela Wanti, being his legal heir, inherited the property. She was murdered and it is claimed by the Plaintiff-Respondents that they being the sons of Ram Partap are entitled to succeed to Sheela Wanti and the Defendant-Appellants are in forcible possession of the house belonging to Sheela Wanti. The Plaintiff-Respondents have claimed possession.

The Defendant-Appellants had resisted the suit on a number of grounds and Kewal Krishan had pleaded that the deceased had made the Will in his favour on 28th June, 1974 while she was in her sound and disposing mind. It was not denied that the house in question belonged to Sheela Wanti. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi of file the present suit? OPP

Whether the plan of the property is incorrect? OPD.

Whether Shrimati Sheela Devi executed a valid Will is favour of Defendant No. 1? OPD.

Whether the Defendant No. 1 made improvements in the house in dispute to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and whether he is entitled to recover the same from the Plaintiffs? OPD.

Relief.

The Plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as his own witness and the Defendants examined Rattan Chand, D.W.2. Sat Pal D.W.3 and Kewal Krishan, Defendant as D.W.I. The Plaintiff in rebuttal further examined Satinder Kumar PW.2.

The learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 3 in favour of the Plaintiffs. These findings have not been challenged before me.

The trial Court decided issue No. 4 also in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has challenged the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 4 and has pleaded that Will Exhibit D.5 has been-proved and the trial Court has illegally held that Will Ex.D.5 is not free from suspicions.

In support of the execution of the Will, the Defendant-Appellants had examined Rattan Chand son of Gokal Chand DW2, one of the marginal witnesses of the Will Exh.D5 and Dr. Sat Pal, the alleged scribe of the Will, DW3. Kewal Krishan DW1 also appeared in support of the Will. It is not disputed that Sheela Wanti died on 27th December, 1974 issueless. The Will is dated 28th June, 1974. The case of the Defendant-Appellants is the Kewal Krishan was living with the deceased and he had performed her funeral ceremonies upon her death; The deceased executed the Will in his favour out of love and affection and she was healthy and in disposing mind at the time of the execution of the Will. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Will is supported by scribe and one attesting witness.

I have considered the arguments and gone through the evidence file. A perusal of the Will Exh.D.5 will show that no reference has been made in the Will as to why the natural heirs excluded from inheritance by the deceased Sheela Wanti. It is not the case of the parties that the deceased-had inimical relations with the natural heirs or she had any other special reasons to exclude them from inheritance. Apart from this, the Will was executed at Jullundur City and strangely enough it was not scribed by any deed-writer. The name of the scribe is also not mentioned in the will muchless his signatures. The papers on which the will is scribed is a sheet taken out of the exercise book of some school boy. The deceased had died on 27th December, 1974 but the will was produced for the first time in court only at the time of the recording of Defendants'' evidence. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the will was not produced earlier. The property is situated well within the Municipal limits of Jullundur City. If the Will had been genuinely executed then the Defendant would have certainly applied to the Municipal Committee for recording his name as successor of Sheela Wanti on the basis of the Will but nothing of his type had been brought on the file to show that after the death of the deceased. Kewal Krishan Defendant Appellant disclosed the Will to anybody. It is also strange that the will is not signed by the scribe or his name is not mentioned.

The trial Court had discarded the Will considering it to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The findings by the trial Court are based on correct appraisal of the evidence that the will is highly, suspicious and its execution is not free from doubts and 1 endorse the same. This issue was rightly decided against the Defendants.

In view of the findings on issue No. 4, there is no merit in this appeal which is here by dismissed. The judgment and order of the trial Court is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.