BALWANT SINGH Vs. JAGPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 23.12.1991, passed by the Collector, Sangrur, in a case of mutation regarding inheritance, with his recommendation, that, the revision petition be accepted, the order dated 30.8.1991, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sunam, as well as, the order dated 23.12.1991, passed by the Collector Sangrur be set aside, and the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sunam, "for allowing an opportunity to the parties to bring their evidence on record", and to decide the case afresh, as per his reference dated 29.11.1996.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, after the death of Pritam Singh on 17.10.1990, mutation No. 2692 of Village Chajla, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, was entered by the Halqa Patwari, on the basis of the registered Will dated 11.5.1981, propounded by Labh Singh son of Pritam Singh, on behalf of his minor sons namely, Jagpal Singh and Jagtar Singh. The deceased Pritam Singh was survived by his widow Shiam Kaur; Balwant Singh, Malkiat Singh, Labh Singh, sons; and Bant Kaur, Ghoti and Labh Kaur, daughters. Before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Sunam, an unregistered Will dated 14.4.1986, was propounded by the petitioner Balwant Singh on behalf of self and his brothers and the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Sunam, had declared this mutation as contested and had referred it to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sunam for decision. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sunam, after considering the evidence led in support of both the Wills, had rejected both these Wills, and vide his order dated 30.8.1991, had sanctioned mutation No. 2692, of Pritam Singh's inheritance in favour of all the natural heirs viz. his widow, three sons and three daughters. Aggrieved by this order, Jagpal Singh, Jagtar Singh sons of Labh Singh, had filed an appeal before the Collector Sangrur, who vide his order dated 23.12.1991, had accepted this appeal, had set aside the order pased by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sunam, and while treating the registered Will dated 11.5.1981, as a genuine document, had sanctioned this mutation, in favour of Jagpal Singh and Jagtar Singh sons of Labh Singh. Against the Collector's order, Balwant Singh had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported vide his reference dated 29.11.1996.

(3.) IN this case, Balwant Singh son of Pritam Singh had filed Suit No. 289 of 11.5.1992, as "suit for possession", before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam, which was decided on 15.2.1996. In his suit, the petitioner Balwant Singh had claimed possession of land, as devolved on him as one of the legatees of the unregistered Will dated 14.4.1986, which the plaintiff had claimed to be the latest Will of the deceased Pritam Singh, who had also allegdly revoked the registered Will dated 11.5.1981, in his unregistered Will dated 14.4.1986. A perusal of the Civil Court judgment dated 15.2.1996 indicates that, during the proceedings, the unregistered Will dated 14.4.1986, was exhibited as Ex.P-1, and the registered Will dated 11.5.1981, was exhibited as Ex. D-2. As per his order dated 15.2.1996, the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sunam, had rejected the "suit for possession" filed by Balwant Singh; but, had given some findings on both these documents, which are relevant to decide the fate of the mutation, regarding Pritam Singh's inheritance. In the order, the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sunam, in para 16-17 of the judgment, has observed as under :- "The Will Ex.P.1 is a natural Will. No suspicious circumstance surrounds the execution thereof. Even, the defendants are beneficiaries of will Ex.P1. It is well settled that females are normally disinherited from the estate by the testator, as enough money is spent on their marriages and it is also the desire of the testator that the property remains in the family and it must devolve upon the male legal heirs. Moreover, the females i.e. sisters of the plaintiff have not raised any dispute regarding genuineness and correctness of the Will Ex.P 1. Only defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are beneficiaries under the Will Ex.D.2, which stood revoked through Will Ex.P.1, and their father Labh Singh third defendant, have been disputing the execution of Will Ex.P.1. So, in these circumstances, it is held that Will Ex.D.2 stood revoked through execution of the Will Ex.P.1, by Pritam Singh deceased. Issue is held against the contesting defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the above, the import of the Civil Court judgment, may be summed up, as, that, the deceased Pritam Singh had executed both the registered Will dated 11.5.1981, as well as the unregistered Will dated 14.4.1986 but, as per the unregistered Will, the testator Pritam Singh, had revoked his previous registered Will dated 11.5.1981; the unregistered Will dated 14.4.1986, was a valid and genuine document, the execution of which was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. While testing the unregistered Will dated 14.4.1986, on the anvil of the authorities contained in the rulings viz. 1993 PLJ page 188 and 1996 PLJ page 66, one may find that a few suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will, such as : omission of name of wife and all the three daughters, without any explanation, as to why they have been ignored from inheritance; absence of provisions regarding maintenance of wife and daughters; devolution of inheritance only on three sons, that too, in an unfair and un-nautural manner; revocation of an earlier registered Will through an unregistered Will; scribing and execution of the Will at the Tehsil office and not getting the same registered etc., are discernible. But, as Revenue Officers, we are not supposed to sit in judgment over the judgments passed by the Civil courts; and, in such matters, the findings of the Civil courts being binding on the Revenue Officers, the Civil Court judgment, in this case, is required to be given effect to, in the revenue record.