SADHU SINGH Vs. BHOG SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This may be read in continuation of my order dated 19.3.1981. By the aforesaid order, I directed the trial Court to send the will in question to Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur to get the two thumb impressions of Bishan Singh affixed thereon, compared so that the authenticity of the will could be found out. The trial Court complied with the direction and has forwarded to this Court a report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, which is marked as Exhibit C.1. A reading of the report show that the two thumb impressions are identical and are of one and the same person. The following pedigree table would facilitate the matter.

(2.) On the contest of the parties, several issues were framed and the only relevant issue, which survives for consideration, is;

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the report of the Finger Print Bureau, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court erred in law in not keeping in view the correct principles of law which resulted into an erroneous decision. The will was attested by Puran Singh and Chet Singh. Puran Singh was sarpanch of the village and was produced as D.W.1 and Chet Singh was lambardar who was produced as D.W.2 while Puran Singh wholly supported the due execution of the will the sound disposing mind of the testator and the presence of Chet Singh lambardar the other attesting witness; there is slight inconsistency in the statement of Chet Singh and largely because of that the lower appellate Court has unnecessarily raised suspicion in coming to the conclusion that it was not a valid document. The salient facts of the case have to kept in view in judging whether the so called suspicious circumstances are realy worthy of notice or not. Sadhu Singh had been living with the testator since the time he came to his house along with his mother or her remarriage and was brought up and married by him. The evidence on the record and particularly the statement of D.Ws. 1 and 2 show that Sadhu Singh beneficiary had been serving the testator which would be natural on the given acts of the case besides being his brother's son. Since he had no other male issue, therefore, it was natural for him to demise his entire estate in favour of his wife's son instead of leaving it to go to him as his brother;s son along with the plaintiff's, who are sons from his second brother. If this is kept in view, then the statement of Chet Singh, attesting witness, that Sadhu Singh was wanting that the Will should be executed, only means that he wanted that the matter should be decided so that there is no trouble after the death. The suggestion of Sadhu Singh does not amount to either coercion or undue influence on the testator, or to show that the testator was not in a sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the Will. If it was realy that Sadhu Singh pressurised Bishan Singh, then he would not have gone to the extent of getting the will registered or in any case, could have written another will before this death because he lived for almost about four years after the execution of the will. All these facts go a long way to show that what Chet Singh stated in cross examination was not such a matter as to raise an inference or conclusion of the Will being surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The lower appellate Court also erred in not accepting the will merely because it was in a torn condition. I have seen the original Will on the record. It is true that the will is torn but this is only due to the passage of time and is not attributable to gaining any advantage thereby. It appears to have been written in the normal course and the sub registrar made an endorsement in his own hand writing is as follows :-