KARTARI Vs. GURMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed in appeal. One Pritam Singh was the owner of the suit property. By virtue of the registered will Exhibit P1 dated 22.5.1968, he bequeathed the same in favour of the plaintiffs. Since the mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1, they filed the present suit. The said Pritam Singh died on 21.9.1968 in village Pandhera Kalan. According to the plaint, the will was executed in view of the services rendered by the plaintiffs to deceased Pritam Singh. They also claimed that they are in possession of the suit land but since the defendants started denying their title, they filed the present suit. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs were not the owners in possession of the suit land as alleged. It was denied that the deceased Pritam Singh executed any valid will in favour of the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs served the deceased as claimed by them. On the contrary it was averred that the defendants were serving the deceased. The alleged will was a forged and fictitious document. The trial Court found that Pritam Singh did not execute a valid will in favour of the plaintiffs and hence dismissed the suit. However, the other issue that the plaintiffs were related to Pritam Singh, though distantly, was decided in their favour. The possession of the suit land was also found with the plaintiffs. In appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 3 was erroneous. The deceased had executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiffs for the services rendered by them. Moreover, they are also in possession of the suit land since the death of Pritam Singh and it were the plaintiffs who performed the last rites of deceased Pritam Singh. As a result of this finding, the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants submitted that the attesting witness of the will did not prove the will in accordance with law. Any admission made by the attesting witnesses before the Registrar was of no consequence. The will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The testator was an old weak man. Ujaggar Singh, the propounder of the will took active part in execution of the will. The will was got registered at Garhshankar and not at Dasuya which was nearer to the village of the deceased. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, there was no description of the property which was willed away by deceased Pritam Singh.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in the second appeal. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and they had rendered services to the deceased for which the will was made in their favour. The said recital has also been made in the will itself by the deceased. The will is a registered document and has been duly proved by the attesting witnesses as well as Registration Clerk. The findings arrived at by the final Court of fact could not be interfered in the second appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.