BAJ SINGH Vs. GANGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 plaintiff Gango filed suit for possession claiming inheritance to the estate of her father Ishar Singh and it was stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were brothers of the plaintiff, got the land mutated in their favour as sole heirs of Ishar Singh on the basis of a will, which was not valid. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit on the basis of a will in their favour and examined petition writer Amrit Lal as DW-1 Panja Singh as DW-2 and Baj Singh defendant appeared as DW-3.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit upholding the will dated 26.3.1971. It was held that the will was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, mutation Ex.D-3 had been sanctioned and order of the Revenue Officer dated 16.3.1973 had been passed in the presence of all concerned persons including the plaintiff, wherein it is stated that the will was duly admitted by the plaintiff and the suit was filed long after the sanction of the mutation.

(3.) The respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal and the appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court on the ground that will Ex.D-1 was not proved to have been duly executed and suspicious circumstances surrounding the will were not explained; the scribe Amrit Lal DW-1 had not stated that the testator had thumb marked the will in the presence of attesting witnesses nor the said scribe was in a position to state about the identity of the testator nor about his disposing mind. It was observed that the defendants failed to produce the statement of the plaintiff stated to have been recorded by the Revenue Officer when mutation Ex.D-3 was sanctioned.