JODH SINGH CHOWDHARY Vs. HARDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Jodh Singh Chowdhury, the father of Flt. -Lt. Panj Rattan Singh, who died in an air craft accident on 17th June, 1966, for grant of probate of a will of the deceased. It has been alleged in the petition that the last will and testament executed by the deceased Panj Rattan Singh, on 14th May, 1959 was got registered by him with the Sub -Registrar, Jamnagar on that very day. The Petitioner has been named executor in the will. The details of assets likely to come to the Petitioner's hand have been given in an affidavit of valuation, the total amount being Rs. 36,143.49 Paise.

(2.) THE citation of the aforesaid petition was ordered to be published in the Tribune, the date of hearing being fixed for 3rd November, 1966. Smt. Hardev Kaur, the widow of Panj Rattan Singh deceased, has contested the grant of the probate. According to her, the will, dated 14th May, 1959, is not the last will and testament of the deceased. It has been denied that the Petitioner could lay any claim to the provident fund of Rs. 23,529 or any other amount mentioned in Annexure "A" on the basis of the alleged will, dated 14th May, 1959. It has further been stated in the reply filed by Smt. Hardev Kaur that the Petitioner and his wife Sardarni Gurbachan Kaur, mother of the deceased, had been jointly and severally making applications to the Indian Air Force authorities for obtaining the various amounts in question. They laid their claim to the provident fund on the basis of a nomination made in their favour on 5th March,. 1960. As regards the Benevolent Fund, it has been pointed out that under the Rules and the Regulations of the Air Force, the amount of Rs. 1,500 which is lying in that fund, could be paid only to the widow of the deceased and not to anyone else.

(3.) THE will, Exhibit A. 1, of which probate is sought is a short document. The main body consists of typed matter in which the blanks have been filled up in writing. By means of it, the testator gave and bequeathed to his father. S. Jodh Singh Chowdhury, his heirs, executors or administrators for his use and benefit, absolutely and for ever all his property, both movable and immovable, whatsoever, wheresoever and of what nature and quality soever. Jodh Singh Chowdhury was appointed the sole executor of the will. It was executed at Jamnagar on 14th May. 1959 and was attested by three officers of the Indian Air Force two of whom have appeared as witnesses. Flt. -Lt. D. P. Singh. No. 5503. who appeared as A. W. 1. has stated that he knew Flt. -L Pani Rattan Singh, deceased and that the will. Exhibit A. 1, was executed by him in his presence by appending his signatures. He further stated that he attested the will in the presence of the deceased and that Flt. -Lt. C.L. Gupta and San. -Leader Y.N. Kapur, both attested the will as witnesses in his presence as also in the presence of the deceased. According to the statement of Flt. -Lt. Y.N. Kanur. No. 5061 (A.W. 2). the will was executed in his presence and it bore hip signatures as an attesting witness. The deceased signed the will in his presence. The other two witnesses were also present at that time. The deceased filled un the blanks in Exhibit A. 1 in his presence. The third attesting witness. Flt. -Lt. C.L. Gupta. No. 5027, does not appear to have been examined but although there was cross -examination of these two witnesses on other points, there was no challenge on the execution and attestation of the will. There is no reason to suppose that these responsible officers had any reason to make a wrong statement -There is hardly any evidence in rebuttal on this point and 1 have no doubt that the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act have been fully satisfied, Moreover, the will was got registered and according to the Sub -Registrar's endorsement, it was presented by Panj Rattan Singh, deceased himself. There is nothing to indicate that the deceased was not of a sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the will and although Mr. Atma Ram, counsel for the Respondent, endeavoured to raise this question at the stage of arguments, he could not point to any pleading of the Respondent or to any other facts or evidence which would throw any doubt on the factum of the deceased being of a sound disposing mind at the material time. I would, therefore, hold that the execution and attestation of the will has been duly proved in accordance with law.