MOHINDER SINGH (DECEASED) Vs. NARANJAN SINGH (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal filed by Mohinder Singh, the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal he died and his legal heirs, Daya Singh and others were brought on the record. The suit filed by Mohinder Singh for declaration that he was owner of the land in dispute on the basis of a Will executed by Pala Singh in his favour, in the alternative he was a tenant in the land in dispute was decreed by the trial Court holding him to be owner on proof to the valid Will of Pala Singh, he was also held to be in possession of the land in dispute. It was not considered necessary to further determine whether he was a tenant in the land in dispute. This judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside by the District Judge on appeal filed by Naranjan Singh and others, the defendants. The defendants controverted the plea of the plaintiff with regard to the valid execution of the Will of Pala Singh. According to them it was forged Will. They also denied that the plaintiff was a tenant. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

(2.) Shri D.N. Rampal, learned Counsel for the appellant, while criticising the judgment of the lower appellate Court has argued that the lower appellate Court did not apply judicial mind to appreciate the evidence produced in the case while reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 1. According to learned Counsel it was necessary to refer to the evidence produced by the parties in detail and to give reasons for coming to a contrary conclusion. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of Delhi High Court (Himachal Bench) in Hari Bhai and another Vs. Barfi and others, AIR 1969 Delhi 197 . It was observed that it was incumbent upon the Court of appeal to pay appropriate attention to the evidence on the record and to make well reasoned orders in regard to those decisions, particularly when they were reversing the conclusion on facts. It may further be observed that in that very case it was held that no general rule could be laid down that in all cases the Court of first appeal must mention every piece of evidence and reproduce the testimony of every witness with elaborate co-moment. The aforesaid proposition of law is not being disputed on behalf of the respondents. However, it has been argued the conclusions arrived at by the lower appellate court are based on the evidence produced in the case and the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are not vitiated.

(3.) The question of proof of a Will in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 63 of the Indian Succession Act and if the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it is the duty of the propounder to explain the same, stands of well established that I need not refer in detail to the decisions of the Apex court on the subject. Those decisions are Kalyan Singh Vs. Smt. Chhoti and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 396; Rani Purnima Debi and another Vs. Kumar Kagendra Narayan Deb and another, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 567; Ram Chandra Rambux Vs. Champabai and others, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 354 . The question of proof of the Will and as to whether suspicious circumstances attached to the execution of the Will have been properly explained by the propounder depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no decision as such can be taken as a precedent to be followed.