AMARJIT KAUR Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, seeking to set aside the order dated 28.3.2001 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, in the matter of mutation No. 2616 of v. Usma, tehsil Tarn Taran, of inheritance of Gurnam Kaur.

(2.) Gurnam Kaur died on 12.1.1992. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 2.4.1998 ignored the registered will dated 22.3.1983 in favour of the petitioner, and sanctioned the mutation on the basis of natural inheritance. The ADC-cum-Collector, Amritsar vide order dated 15.3.1999 dismissed the appeal against that order. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar upheld the order of the two lower Revenue Officers. Hence the present petition.

(3.) One of the attesting witnesses had died. The other, Didar Singh, denied before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade that he had attested the will whereas he had deposed in the civil court that he had attested the will.ITTOOP VARGHESE V/S POULOSE, 1975 AIR(Ker) 141 is authority that when the attesting witness deliberately and falsely denies that he attested the will, the court is not powerless. It can look into the whole circumstances of the case and come to the conclusion that the formalities of section 63 of the Succession Act (1925) were duly complied with. The Ahlmad to the Registering Officer deposed that Gurnam Kaur had executed and registered the will. Accordingly, there is no reason to disregard the registered will. The revision is accepted the impugned orders are set aside, and the mutation is sanctioned on the basis of the registered will dated 22.3.1983.