VIKAS GOUR Vs. NAVAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for making good the deficiency in Court fee.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs has been wrongly dismissed by the Courts below without taking into consideration the settled preposition of law that the latest Will has to prevail over the earlier Will. He contends that although the earlier Will executed by Smt. Raj Kumari in favour of respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1-Naval Kishore dated 11.01.1984 was a registered Will, however, subsequent Will, which has been executed by her in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs dated 28.12.2006 although unregistered, stands duly proved as per the requirement of the law. Assertion has been made that the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act have been fulfilled and the Will dated 28.12.2006 duly proved on examining one of the witnesses of the Will. Merely because the subsequent Will, which has been executed by Smt. Raj Kumari, was unregistered would not make much of a difference. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there was no reason to disbelieve this Will dated 28.12.2006 especially when the defendants have no where stated that this Will was not signed by the deceased. There was ample evidence produced by the appellants-plaintiffs that there was love and affection of the appellants with the deceased Raj Kumari as they had rendered service to her during her last days. There was every reason for the deceased to execute the subsequent Will dated 28.12.2006 in favour of the appellants. The Courts below have failed to take into consideration and appreciate the fact that the respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 was serving in Markfed and used to reside at Kapurthala and, therefore, it is but natural that the appellants have taken care of the old and infirm lady being their maternal grandmother (Nani) and she had executed the Will dated 28.12.2006 in their favour. The Will has been said to be under suspicious circumstances which is absolutely wrong as the Courts below have wrongly relied upon the fact that in the subsequent Will i.e. 28.12.2006, there is no reference of the earlier Will dated 11.01.1984 executed in favour of respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1. Merely because of non-mentioning of the said aspect/fact would not render the subsequent Will illegal. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence led by the appellants-plaintiffs leading to the misreading of the evidence which renders the judgments passed by the Courts below illegal, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

(3.) In support of these contentions, counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Shingara Singh vs. Nasib Kaur through LRs Karamjit Kaur and others, 2015 (3) PLJ 589, Joginder Pal Sharma and others vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma and others, 2009 (10) RCR (Civil) 452, Gurditta Mal (Dead) through LRs vs. Veer Bhan, 2013 (5) RCR (Civil) 235, Harbans Singh and others vs. German Singh (Dead) through his LRs and others, 2011 (5) RCR (Civil) 799 and Karmi wd/o Jai Chand vs. Sital and another, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 63.