GURBACHAN SINGH (DECEASED, THROUGH HIS LRS) AND OTHERS Vs. CHANAN KAUR ALIAS CHANNO (DECEASED, THROUGH HER LRS) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal: - -

(2.) THE trial Court found that the plaintiff had examined two witnesses -Puran Singh and Naranjan Singh as DW1 and DW2, who spoke to the fact that Bhola Singh had affixed the thumb -impression and they had seen Bhola Singh affixing the thumb -impression and that Bhola Singh had also seen the respective witnesses sign the document in his presence as attestors. The Court, while finding that there has been due attestation, proceeded to examine whether the Will was attendant with any suspicious circumstance and reasoned each one of the circumstances held out against the defendants had been properly explained. On the first consideration regarding the fact that the plaintiff had been disinherited, the Court reasoned that the daughters had been married and were living in a foreign country, while the defendant had actually looked after Bhola Singh and his wife and hence, he had a natural affection for him and intended to benefit him. The Court also found that the plaintiff himself came to know about the Will only a few days before the death of his widow who spoke to him about the Will and handed over the Will to him and only subsequent to her death, he had the Will duly registered with the Sub -Registrar. The very same officer had also subsequently carried out the mutation in his favour. This also, according to the trial Court, is a valid justification that dispelled any room for suspicion about the genuineness of the document. The trial Court also observed that PW2 himself had admitted that the defendant had been taking care of Bhola Singh and his widow and, therefore, the bequest in favour of the defendants was most natural.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants, who were the legal representatives of the original defendant, apart from reading the judgment of the trial Court in full, is not even in a position to supply to the Court the translation of the recitals of the Will written in urdu and explain whether there had been even a reference about the plaintiffs in his Will and whether he was making any specific reason for disinheriting his daughter. I have also not the benefit of knowing first hand from the recitals where the testator was directing possession of the property soon after his death with merely a provision for income to be given to his widow or he was deferring the delivery of possession of the property till after the life time of the widow. The manner in which the possession was to be handed over would really explain whether there had been a delayed publicity to the Will or not. If it was a case of the property being given to the defendant going after his death with direction to take care of his widow by giving income, then he ought to have known the Will immediately. Any evidence that only before the death of widow 7 or 8 years after the death of her husband that she was making reference to the Will would be a grossly unnatural circumstance. I cannot believe that a person who had disinherited his daughters and was handing over the entire bequest to the defendant had not even chosen to inform him of the benefit that he was giving to him. If the Will was to be kept as secret and he had any reason to believe that giving publicity to it would have created some problem with his daughters causing some trouble, that itself ought to be again a circumstance and reason to be explained in Court. A person that propounds a Will needs to be spelt out every circumstance that could enable him to secure the bequest and weed out the dark cloud of suspicion. The propounder of the Will had failed to dispel the doubts.