(O&M)

Page 1 of 15

1 Defendant No.3 is in appeal. For convenience, parties

hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. appellant

as defendant No.3, respondent No.1 as plaintiff and respondents No.2 to 7 as

defendants.

2 Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect

that she along with defendants No.1 to 7 are owners in possession to the

extent of 1/8 share each in the estate left behind by Pritam Singh son of

Labhu Ram.

3 The dispute in the appeal relates to estate left by Pritam Singh

which has been fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. As per the

admitted facts Pritam Singh married twice and died on 25.06.2008 leaving

(O&M)

Page 2 of 15

behind 7 children and one widow i.e. the appellant. Present appellant who

was arraigned as defendant No.3 propounded a WILL dated 04.06.2008

claiming to have been executed by Pritam Singh whereby he bequeathed his

entire property in her favour. To prove WILL one of the attesting witnesses

Balkar Singh was examined as DW-2. The Courts below after analyzing the

entire evidence came to the conclusion that Balkar Singh was not a truthful

witness. The WILL propounded by the defendant was surrounded by

suspicious circumstances. Pritam Singh died 21 days after execution of

WILL. Description with respect to sons and daughters left by him is in

correct. Balkar Singh while appearing in the witness box could not satisfy

the requirement of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for

short ‘the 1925 Act’). He even failed to identify signatures of Pritam Singh

on Ex.P3, the same being in Urdu script. While he claimed to have

recognized signatures of Pritam Singh on WILL despite the same also being

in URDU.

4 Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings

recorded by the Courts below. She refers to the finding recorded by the

Trial Court to the effect that no reason has been assigned to exclude the sons

and daughters and refers to the WILL wherein it has been mentioned that the

sons and daughters are being excluded by the testator as they have been

given sufficient property by the testator during his life time. She thus

submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below dislodging the WILL

cannot be sustained. She further refers to testimony of plaintiff-Ranjit Kaur

PW-1. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the admission made by

(O&M)

Page 3 of 15

Ranjit Kaur that the suit has been filed at the instance of her brother Jasvir

Singh and that sons of Pritam Singh namely Jasvir Singh and Harjit Singh

were embroiled in proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. It has been

contended that it was but obvious for Pritam Singh to exclude his sons

owing to such disputes. She accordingly submits that once attesting witness

came and testified supporting the execution of the WILL, the Courts below

ought not have dislodged a registered WILL. It has been further contended

that even though there is time gap of only 21 days between the execution of

the WILL and death of Pritam Singh but in the absence of any evidence to

suggest that Pritam Singh was not in control of his physical and/or mental

faculties at the time of execution of the WILL the short time gap cannot be

held to be fatal to the case of the appellant.

5 Per contra learned counsel for the respondents have referred to

the WILL to submit that even the number of children left by Pritam Singh

was not correctly described. This puts whole of the document under cloud

of suspicion. It has been contended that no reason has been assigned to

exclude sons and daughters. Reference is being made to the admissions

made by propounder of the WILL Inderjit Kaur, who appeared in the witness

box as DW-2. It has been submitted that Inderjit Kaur admitted that Pritam

Singh had good relations with his sons and daughters yet all of them have

been excluded without assigning any reason. Counsels further submit that

even though the WILL contains a covenant that the sons and daughters are

being excluded by the testator as he gave them sufficient property during his

life time but there is nothing on record to suggest that any property was ever

(O&M)

Page 4 of 15

given by Pritam Singh to any of his sons and daughters. While plaintiff

appeared in witness box not even a suggestion was put to her with respect to

handing over of any property to her by Pritam Singh during his life time.

6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the records of the case.

(O&M)

Page 5 of 15

(O&M)

Page 6 of 15

(O&M)

Page 7 of 15

(O&M)

Page 8 of 15

(O&M)

Page 9 of 15

(O&M)

Page 10 of 15

(O&M)

Page 11 of 15

(O&M)

Page 12 of 15

(O&M)

Page 13 of 15

(O&M)

Page 14 of 15

11 In the present case propounder of the WILL is defendant No.2.

She is not only required to prove the execution of the WILL in terms of

Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act, but also has a bounden duty to dispel

suspicious circumstances surrounding the WILL, if any. In order to satisfy

the terms of Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act, the WILL is required to be

proved in accordance with Section  68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Balkar Singh one of the attesting witnesses was examined as DW2. The

attesting witness, Balkar Singh, has dented the case of the defendant

irreparably. From the entire testimony of Balkar Singh it is evident that

even though he claimed that Pritam Singh signed the WILL in his presence

but he nowhere says that the same was read over to Pritam Singh after it was

drafted. Rather he admits that after the WILL was typed/scribed it was

never read over. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the propounder

(O&M)

Page 15 of 15

of the WILL failed to discharge the burden to satisfy the necessary

ingredients of Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act.

12 Coming on to the suspicious circumstances, the initial lines of

the WILL regarding number of sons and daughters is evidently wrong.

Defendant in her testimony admitted that Pritam Singh left behind four

daughters and three sons whereas, WILL mentions of three sons and three

daughters. In the WILL the testator claims to have given sufficient property

to his sons and daughters during his life time. There is nothing on record by

way of pleadings or evidence mentioning any property given by the testator

to any of the sons or daughters during his life time.

13 Pure findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts after

analyzing the entire evidence on record. There is no piece of evidence that

can be said to have been misread or ignored by the Courts below. Even

though the second appeal has to be entertained by this Court in terms of

Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, but question of law still remains

sine-qua-non to entertain the appeal.

14 Finding no question of law involved in the present appeal, the

same is ordered to be dismissed.