Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh And Ors vs Jasvir Singh And Ors on 19 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053033
RSA-139-2023 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:053033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
136
RSA-139-2023 (O&M)
Date of Order: 19.04.2024
Jaswinder Singh and others
..Appellants
Versus
Jasvir Singh and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate,
for the appellants.
*****
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This is defendants' regular second appeal against the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing
the plaintiff's suit for grant of declaration that he along with proforma
defendants No. 5 & 6 are joint owners in possession of the land to the extent
of 1/3rd share each.
2. The dispute is with regard to succession of the property left
behind by Sh. Sohan Singh. He left behind his widow, five sons and a
daughter. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Sh. Sohan Singh executed a
registered Will on 04.10.1999 bequeathing the entire property in favour of
his three sons. Defendants while contesting the suit, claimed that Sh.Sohan
Singh never executed the will and in fact there has been a memorandum of
family settlement after the death of Sh.Sohan Singh, which settled the rights
of the parties.
3. In order to prove the execution of the Will, the plaintiff
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053033
RSA-139-2023 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:053033
examined PW-5 Sh. Amarjit Ahir, Scribe of the Will, attesting witness PW-
3 Sh. Tara Singh, Namberdar and Sh. Jaswant Rai official from the Office of
Sub Registrar as PW-4. Upon appreciation of evidence, the Courts have
found that the plaintiff has successfully proved the execution of the Will.
4. Heard learned counsel representing the appellants at length and
with his able assistance perused the paper-book.
5. On the request of the Court, learned counsel representing the
appellants has produced a photocopy of the registered Will dated
04.10.1999. The Will is scribed in Gurmukhi language. A photograph of
late Sh. Sohan Singh is pasted on the top of the page, on which the Will has
been scribed. Sh. Sohan Singh has appended his signature in a manner that
half of his signatures are on the photograph whereas remaining half are on
the paper. Sh. Sohan Singh has not only signed in English but has also
appended his right thumb impression. The Will is attested by two attesting
witnesses, including PW-3 Sh. Tara Singh, Namberdar. It is scribed by Sh.
Amarjit Ahir, who has appeared as PW-5. The second attesting witness is
Sh. Jagdish Chander. The Will was presented for registration before the Sub
Registrar. Sh. Sohan Singh has appended his thumb impression on two
different locations in the office of Sub Registrar. Both the attesting
witnesses have also signed in the presence of the Sub Registrar.
6. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the
following suspicious circumstances prove that the Will is not genuine.
(i) The testator has not given any reason for excluding other
natural heirs, including widow;
(ii) Will has been produced for the first time after a period of
10 years from the death of the testator;
(iii) Plaintiff has failed to prove that relationship of testator
with the other heirs were not cordial;
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053033
RSA-139-2023 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:053033
(iv) One of the beneficiary Rajvir Singh disputes the
existence of the Will;
(v) There is a memorandum of family settlement dated
14.08.2000 which has been acted upon between the
parties, hence, the plaintiff is estopped from filing the
suit;
(vi) Right hand thumb impression of Sh. Sohan Singh has
allegedly been appended, whereas a male person is
required to append his left hand thumb impression.
7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel representing the appellants.
8. While executing a Will, it is not required that a testator give
detailed reasons for excluding his natural heirs. In this case, in the Will
there is a recital that he has five sons, wife and a daughter, however, he
preferred to bequeath his entire property in favour of his three sons. The
Will is not like a judgment where justifiable reasons are required to be
recorded.
9. With reference to the second argument, it be noticed that the
Will is a registered document. The correctness of the signatures, thumb
impression and photograph of the testator is proved to have been appended
by Sohan Singh. The plaintiff while filing the suit has stated that the Will of
late Sh. Sohan Singh came to his knowledge, when he searched an old box
belonging to his father lying in his room. Moreover, the Will was registered
in the year 1999, there is hardly any chance of subsequently fabricating the
registered Will.
10. With reference to next argument of learned counsel for the
appellants, it be noticed that the testator is not required to prove that
relationship of testator with the remaining heirs were not cordial. In any
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053033
RSA-139-2023 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:053033
case, the testator has considered it appropriate to bequeath his property in
favour of his three sons in preference to remaining heirs.
11. The next contention of the learned counsel representing the
appellant is not relevant because Rajvir Singh has joined the defendants,
however, that would not adversely impact on the validity of the Will.
12. The last submission of the learned counsel representing the
appellants, also lacks substance because existence of the Will came to the
notice of the plaintiff subsequent to the execution of the memorandum of a
family settlement.
13. Undoubtedly, in ordinary circumstance, a male person is
required to append his left hand thumb impression, however, in this case it
has come in evidence that left hand of Sh. Sohan Singh did not had thumb.
Moreover, late Sh. Sohan Singh has appended his signatures apart from
putting his thumb impression. No evidence has been led to prove that late
Sh. Sohan Singh did not append his thumb impression. Hence, no ground to
interfere is made out.
14. Dismissed.
15. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
19.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Satyawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
