SARABJIT SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the defendants is before this court impugning the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby the suit filed by respondent No. 1 -plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he is co -sharer in the property in dispute was decreed.

(2.) IN the case in hand, estate of Nasib Kaur is in question. She died on 5.6.1993 survived by three sons and three daughters. Prior to her death, the entire property owned by her husband -Chhaja Singh was divided amongst all the legal heirs, namely, Nasib Kaur, three sons and three daughters equally, i.e., 1/7th share each. In the case in hand, the issue is regarding 1/7th share of the property inherited by Nasib Kaur. In the suit filed by respondent No. 1 -plaintiff on 19.7.2000, it was claimed that he being one of the legal heirs is entitled to 1/6th share of the property left by Nasib Kaur -deceased, she being survived by three sons and three daughters. The suit was contested by the appellant only as Amarjit Singh -defendant, other brother of the appellant, was ex -parte. The daughters had not been impleaded as party. In his defence, the appellant pleaded that the entire property standing in the name of Nasib Kaur -deceased was bequeathed by her vide registered Will dated 4.12.1992 executed in favour of the appellant and his brother -Amarjit Singh. Both the courts below found that the alleged Will produced by the appellant was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, hence, the same was rejected and the property was directed to be divided equally amongst all the legal heirs.

(3.) WHILE impugning the findings recorded by the courts below, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that original Will could not be produced as the same was not traceable. It was not handed over by deceased -Nasib Kaur to the appellant. Certified copy thereof was produced in court. The witness from the office of Registrar was summoned, who had proved the fact that certified copy produced by the appellant was as per the record. That was sufficient proof of the Will. Thumb mark of the executant of the Will was duly proved by the appellant while appearing as DW2. Learned counsel further submitted that in the circumstances, the presumption available under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 was available. For proving a Will, totality of the circumstances has to be seen and not in isolation.