CHINT KAUR ALIAS BALWANT KAUR Vs. SURJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal, which arises out of the following facts.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant Chint Kaur filed a suit for possession of 65 kanals 1 marla of land against the defendant-respondents Surjit Singh and Ors. , alleging. That the land belonged to her deceased husband Santokh Singh and-after his death, one year prior to the filing of the suit, the same had devolved upon her by inheritence but the defendant-respondents have taken possession illegally on the basis of a will that had been propounded by them. The suit was contested by the defendant respondents who claimed that Santokh Singh had executed a valid will Exhibit D1 in their favour on September 2,1972 and that they were in possession of the land on its basis. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence found that the will made by Santokh Singh was a valid one and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby Chint Kaur took an appeal to the appellate Court and the appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court and held that the will in favour of the defendant-respondents was perfectly in order. For arriving at this conclusion the lower Appellate Court found that though the will was an unregistered one, yet it stood proved by the evidence of the scribe Sulakhan Singh DW1 and the two attesting witnesses Major Singh DW2 and Sohan Singh DW3. The lower Appellate Court also found that as per the evidence of Surjit Singh DW4, Chint Kaur had contracted a Karewa marriage with Santokh Singh about 6/7 years prior to his death and that at the time of his death Santokh Singh was about 100 years of age and, as such, it could not be said that the will was a defective one as the legatees were the grand-children of the first cousin of Santokh Singh who admittedly had no children of his own. The lower Appellate Court also found that though Santokh Singh had died 10/12 days after the execution of the will yet it was not the case of Chint Kaur who appeared as PW1 that Santokh Singh was not in senses at the time when he allegedly executed the will. Another circumstance which the lower Appellate Court took against the plaintiff-appellant was that as per the evidence of Sohan Singh DW3 she had been present at the time when the will had been executed and as such could not challenge its veracity at a later stage. The first appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been filed in this Court.

(3.) HE has then argued that the will was an unnatural document and no substantial provision had been made for the widow (Chint Kaur) of Santokh Singh.