NIHAL KAUR Vs. JUGRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's Second Appeal and relates to the validity of the will Ex. P1, allegedly executed by Kartar Kaur on 15th February, 1972. The facts of the case are as under :

(2.) ONE Karam Singh had two wives, Kartar Kaur since deceased, the testator, and Premo. Kartar Kaur had no child from her husband whereas Premo had one son Chanan Singh who was married to Nihal Kaur. Nihal Kaur had two daughters from her husband Chanan Singh i. e. Prito and Gurdas Kaur. After the death of her husband, Kartar Kaur had inherited about 188 kanals of land and a mutation was also sanctioned in her favour on that account. As per the case of the plaintiff-respondent Jugraj Singh, Kartar Kaur who was his father's sister executed a will in his favour on 15th February, 1972 leaving her entire property to him. Kartar Kaur was murdered on 6th September, 1972 allegedly by the sons of Prito and Gurdas Kaur, though these accused were acquitted under the judgment Ex. P5 for lack of evidence. As Jugraj Singh was a minor, he filed a civil suit through his mother Chand Kaur as his next friend claiming that he was owner in possession of the property (the subject matter of the will ). A decree for declaration and permanent injunction was, accordingly, prayed for.

(3.) ON Issue No. 1, the trial Court found that the plaintiff/respondent had not been duly adopted by the deceased-testator and in the alternative, even the will Ex. P1 set up by him had been found to be a suspicious document and could not be believed. On Issue No. 2, it was held that the plaintiff/respondent had failed to prove that he had been put in possession of the property. On Issue No. 3, a finding was recorded that the will Ex. D1 allegedly executed in favour of Ujagar Singh-defendant No. 2 too, was a suspicious document and had not been proved as having been validly executed. On Issue No. 4, it was found that the defendants No. 1, 4 and 5 were the heirs entitled to succeed under the Hindu Succession Act. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Two appeals were taken before the District Judge, Faridkot, one by Ujagar Singh and the other by Jugraj Singh. The lower Appellate Court held that the will Ex. D1 was a suspicious document and unworthy of reliance. On Issue No. 2, it was found that in the meanwhile, the land in question had been attached Under Section 145 of the Cr. P. C. and was, therefore, not in the possession of either party. The finding on Issue No. 1 was reversed and it was held that Kartar Singh had made a valid 1 will in favour of Jugraj Singh and having held as above, allowed the appeal filed by the said appellant, whereas the appeal of Ujagar Singh was dismissed.