DEEPINDER SINGH DHILLON Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioner-Deepinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate, has prayed that the probate of the last will and testament dated 1.10.1990 of Dr. Ran Singh Grewal who died on 21.5.1992 at House No. 322, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh be granted to him as a named executor.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 3, 4 and 6 have no objection to the grant of probate, whereas respondents Nos. 2 and 5 namely Manmohan Singh Grewal and Jagdev Singh Grewal in their respective written statements are contesting the claim of the petitioner. In their respective written statements, they have stated that the deceased never executed any Will. They have also alleged that the properties of which probate is sought are not self-acquired properties of the deceased and as a matter of fact, Dr. Ran Singh Grewal and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 constituted Joint Hindu family and for that matter, the deceased was not competent to execute the will. They have also stated that the property in question has been grossly under-valued and the petitioner be asked to pay court-fee on the market-value of the properties/assets in question.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has proved the due execution of Will by producing one of the attesting witnesses of the Will, namely P.W. 2 Col. Gurbaksh Singh Brar. He further contended that the very fact that the Will is a registered document goes a long way to prove that the Will was executed by the deceased. In regard to excluding Manmohan Singh and Jagdev Singh from House No. 322, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, counsel contended that this cannot be taken to be a suspicious circumstance as in the earlier three registered Wills executed by the deceased, Manmohan Singh was excluded and Jagdev Singh too was excluded in Will dated 12.2.1990. Counsel referred to the correspondence between the deceased and the functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration in which the deceased had complained with regard to conduct of Manmohan Singh qua him and his wife. In order to show that the deceased had reasons to exclude Manmohan Singh from the property, he referred to the suit which the deceased had filed against him for getting the house vacated. In answer to these submissions, counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the Will set up by the petitioner is a forged and fictitious document. Counsel contended that the paper of page-2 of the Will is different from that of pages 1 and 3. He further contended that the typed matter of page 2 of the Will is typed from a different typewriter from which the typed matter of pages 1 and 3 was typed. He further contended that the report of R.W.10, i.e. Document Expert, Sh. K.N. Prasad, has clearly proved on record that Will dated 1.10.1990, Exhibit P.8, is not only a forged and fictitious document, but the copy retained in the office of Sub Registrar, U.T. Chandigarh is also not the second copy of the Will set up by the petitioner. With regard to excluding of Jagdev Singh, counsel contended that neither any good reasons have been given in the Will nor the propounder has been able to satisfy as to why substantial benefit has been given to Sukhpal Singh and Harminder Kaur who never rendered any service or assistance to the deceased.