DALJIT SINGH Vs. SUKHWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the Will dated 22-10-1986 Ex. D.1 on which reliance has been placed by the defendant-respondents is a genuine document and would constitute the basis to determine the right of the parties. It has further been held that the adoption deed Ex. D.2 dated 5-2-1974 could not be proved by defendant-respondent No. 1 showing that he was legally adopted by Harnam Kaur his grand-mother.

(2.) There was one Harnam Kaur who had two daughters namely Surjit Kaur and Balwinder Kaur. The estate of Harnam Kaur is subject-matter of dispute between three sisters and others. Surjit Kaur and Balwinder Kaur, two daughters of Harnam Kaur, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,70,000/- and for possession of the house as per the details given. The amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was claimed from FDR maintained by Harnam Kaur jointly with defendant-respondent 1. Similar claim was made in respect of the house which was allegedly taken in possession by the defendant respondents after the death of Harnam Kaur on 24-5-1989. It is pertinent to mention that Ishar Singh had pre-deceased Harnam Kaur. Defendant-respondent Jagir Kaur is now represented by defendant respondents 3 to 7. The possession of the house in dispute was also claimed. Succession certificate was obtained by Jagir Kaur (now represented by defendant-respondents 3 to 7) on the basis of the Will dated 22-10-1986. It was claimed that Harnam Kaur had in fact died intestate without executing any Will. The succession certificate issued vide order dated 27-10-1989 was also challenged because the plaintiff-appellants were never impleaded as parties in those proceedings. In the written statement filed by the defendant-respondents the case set up was that Harnam Kaur had no son and she adopted defendant respondent No. 1 Balwinder Singh vide registered adoption deed dated 5-2-1974. Reliance was also placed on the Will dated 22-10-1986 asserting that Harnam Kaur had great love and affection for defendant-respondent No. 1.

(3.) Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the Will dated 22-10-1986 Ex. D.1 is a genuine document and is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstance. Various arguments expressing suspicion regarding Will have been rejected. It has been pointed out that Harnam Kaur had purchased property in the name of defendant-respondent No. 1 vide sale deed Ex. DW. 4/A. The sale deed further shows that deceased Harnam Kaur was residing with defendant-respondent 1 and she had love and affection for him. A joint FDR account was opened by deceased Harnam Kaur along with defendant-respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. One lac. The execution of the Will and the thumb impression of Harnam Kaur has also been duly established by examining D.W. 1 Mehma Singh, the attesting witness and D.W. 2 Bharat Bhushan, Deed Writer. D.W. 1 Mehma Singh has deposed in unequivocal terms that the Will Ex. D1 was read over to the testator Harnam Kaur and after admitting its contents to be correct and true, she had thumb marked the same in his presence as well as in the presence of other marginal witness, namely, Balbir Singh. The Will was thereafter presented before the Sub Registrar for its registration who also read over its contents to Harnam Kaur and who had thumb marked the same after admitting the contents of the Will to be true. The witnesses have also attested the Will. It was further stated that the testator was in a sound disposing mind at that time. Despite the detailed cross-examination of all the witnesses nothing suspicious could be extracted. It is further appropriate to mention that defendant-respondents had also examined Shri Anil Kumar Gupta D.W. 8, a document expert. The thumb impression of Harnam Kaur on the Will Ex. D. 1 has been compared with the admitted thumb impression and it has been opined that the thumb impressions on the Will are of one and the same person who had thuml marked the sale deed Ex. D3 and D.W. 4/A. The observations of the lower appellate Court on the aforementioned issue reads as under :