SALINDER KAUR Vs. KUNDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs-respondents Kundan Singh son of Nagina Singh and Jagbiro widow of Nathu son of Gokal filed the suit for possession in respect of the land defined in the plaint. It has been alleged that Assa Singh had half share in the suit land and the remaining half share of the land belonged to his brother Jota who died about 30 years ago preceding the date of the filing of the suit. He was survived by his widow Narati alias Prem Kaur. She contracted Karewa marriage with the aforesaid Assa Singh, brother of her husband, who died about 22 years ago preceding the date of filing of the suit. It has been further alleged that no issue was born from this wedlock and that after the death of Assa Singh, she suffered mental shock and became lunatic. It is also alleged that a number of persons got some documents thumb-marked from her when she was suffering from lunacy. It has also been alleged that defendant No. 1 Prem Singh son of Gurmukh Singh got a fictitious will thumb- marked from her on 16.4.1975. Whereas, in fact, she had never ever executed the aforestated Will, as such, the said Will does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 Pooran Singh son of Gokal Singh of Bal Majra. However, it has been claimed that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 are the only legal heirs of Prem Kaur and therefore they are the owners of the suit land. Thus, the possession of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 is illegal.

(2.) THE defendant No. 3 was proceeded against ex parte and that defendant No. 4 did not contest the suit being a proforma-defendant. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by way of filing a detailed written statement and denying all the pleas set up in the plaint. It has been categorically claimed that Prem Kaur had never ever suffered a mental shock and that she was always of sound and disposing mind and that she executed her last Will dated 16.4.1975 in favour of Prem Singh, Harnam Singh and Guru Granth Sahib i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The claim and right of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 has been emphatically denied as they do not have any right, title or interest in the suit land nor they can be accepted as collaterals of Prem Kaur.

(3.) THE plaintiffs-respondents being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court and have questioned the finding in respect of the Will Exhibit D-1. It has been observed by the lower Appellate Court that the disputed will had been executed about a month prior to the death of Prem Kaur and also in favour of defendant-appellant Nos. 1 to 3. The perusal of the Will shows that one killa of the land was decreed in favour of Guru Granth Sahib and defendant-appellant No. 2 each and the remaining land/property has been decreed in favour of defendant-appellant No. 1. It has also been elicited that neither defendant- appellant No. 1 nor defendant-appellant No. 2 were related to her but despite this the effort has been made to show that they are the rightful claimants pursuant to the aforestated Will. The plaintiffs-respondents have made an effort to show that Prem Kaur was looked after by her brother Shadi Singh but when he appeared as a witness, he had categorically admitted that he stopped visiting her for the last 5 to 7 years after she had executed Mutbananama and that she had expressed her views for executing the Will in favour of others. He was also unable to tell as to when she had died. In view of this, the conclusion is that Prem Kaur was looked after by defendant-appellant No. 1 and she died in his house at village Rampur Khurd, whereas the disputed land was situated in another village i.e. Bal Majra, where the plaintiffs are stated to be residing. Yet another fact which has emerged is that the plaintiffs- respondents have also placed reliance upon the Will Exhibit P-9 which is again stated to be thumb-marked by Prem Kaur. But at the same time, the plea has been set up by them that she was not of sound and disposing mind after the death of Assa Singh. The inference drawn by the lower Appellate Court is that it looks that Prem Kaur was an innocent person and could be brought under influence easily. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that she was not of sound and disposing mind. It is on these premises, the Will Exhibit D-1 has been non-suited and likewise the Will Exhibit P-9 dated 5.6.1972 has also been non-suited.