Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur Alias Jeto vs Darshan Singh And Others on 25 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057492
RSA No. 723 of 1994
RSA No. 725 of 1994 -1- 2024:PHHC:057492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
RSA No. 723 of 1994
Date of Decision: 25.04.2024
Surjit Kaur @ Jeto .....Appellant
Versus
Darshan Singh and others .....Respondents
RSA No. 725 of 1994
Surjit Kaur @ Jeto .....Appellant
Versus
Darshan Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Bhavnik Mehta, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.(ORAL)
1. These appeals were filed in the year 1994 by the learned
counsel who was later on elevated to the Bench and has since retired. His
briefs are handled by Sh. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, who was working
with the learned counsel, who had filed these appeals. These appeals are
pending for the last 30 years. On 05.04.2024, Sh. Animesh Sharma,
Advocate appeared in the Court on behalf of the appellant.
2. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that he has
prepared the case, however, he has not filed a Power of Attorney on behalf
of the appellants.
3. On request of the Court, he has come forward to assist the Court
in disposal of the old appeals.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057492
RSA No. 725 of 1994 -2- 2024:PHHC:057492
4. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties
two connected regular second appeals, shall stand disposed of by common
order.
5. In substance, the dispute in the present case is about the validity
and genuineness of the Will dated 27.06.1983. Sh. Gurbachan Singh is
alleged to have bequeathed the suit property, which is 14 marlas plot with
construction to his son Sh. Darshan Singh while excluding the other
children.
6. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Will is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It was held that the attesting
witnesses belong to the different villages, and the Will is not registered. The
Court also observed that a house has been constructed on the plot which has
not been recited and there are minute contradictions in the statement of
PW-6 and the scribe has not been examined.
7. Upon reappreciation of evidence, the First Appellate Court
found that the attesting witness of the Will namely Sh. Dalbara Singh has
been examined. PW-4 Sh. Tejinder Singh, a colleague of the scribe has been
examined who has produced the entry in his register. It was found that Sh.
Malik Hargobind, the scribe is unable to appear in the Court due to weak
eye-sight. PW-10 Sh. Ranjit Singh, the handwriting and fingerprint expert
has also been examined. It is recited in the Will that both the plots were
purchased by Sh. Gurbachan Singh, however, the funds were provided by
Sh. Darshan Singh. The evidence has also been led to prove that Sh. Darshan
Singh alone contributed the purchase money as well as amount spent on the
construction of the house. Thus, the First Appellate Court has accepted the
appeal.
8. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057492
RSA No. 725 of 1994 -3- 2024:PHHC:057492
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
9. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
attesting witnesses were of a younger age and they did not personally know
the testator. He submits that the First Appellate Court has erred in reversing
the judgment passed by the trial Court.
10. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
11. It is evident that Sh. Gurbachan Singh while executing the Will
has specifically recited that Sh. Darshan Singh had paid the money for the
purchase of the plot. The Will is attested by two attesting witnesses. As per
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Will is required to be
proved by examining one attesting witness. In this case, Sh. Dalbara Singh,
the attesting witness has been examined. It is also proved that the entire sale
consideration was paid by Sh. Gurbachan Singh on the funds provided by
Sh. Darshan Singh and it is Sh. Darshan Singh who had borrowed loan to
complete the construction. In these circumstances, the Will shall not become
doubtful merely because the testator failed to specify the constructed
portion. The intent of the testator is clear and categoric. It is not appropriate
for the Courts to interfere with the wishes of the testator unless cogent
evidence is led, which give rise to a genuine doubt about the correctness of
the Will.
12. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
13. Dismissed accordingly.
25.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
3 of 3
