LAWS(P&H)-2008-11-67

MOHINDER KAUR Vs. SANT KAUR

Decided On November 03, 2008
MOHINDER KAUR Appellant
V/S
SANT KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 22.11.1985 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala allowed the appeal of the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1982 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala.

(2.) THE plaintiff/appellant filed a suit on the allegations that her husband suddenly developed severe intestinal pain on 23.6.1968. On the next morning, he was taken to Patiala where he was admitted in Rajindera Hospital and operated upon the same day. He, however died within 3-4 days of the operation. As per the stand of the plaintiff, she and her mother-in-law were the only two legal representatives of the deceased (there being no issue from the marriage) and were, thus, entitled to succeed to the estate of the said deceased. She consequently filed the instant suit for joint possession of 1/4th share out of 30-83-48 hectares of land (which was jointly owned by her deceased husband and his brother).

(3.) LEARNED trial Court found that there were inconsistencies in the statements of the attesting witnesses, the mother of the deceased, as well as the doctor who had attended the deceased with regard to the circumstances in which the alleged will was executed. However, the crucial evidence on which the learned trial Court relied for holding the will to be not proved was the testimony of Dewan K.S. Puri (PW4) that the will did not bear thumb impressions of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that the standard thumb impressions which were used for comparison were those which had been appended by the deceased on two loan applications. The said thumb impressions were attested by the then Tehsildar Bikram Singh (PW5). The trial Court consequently held the will not to be proved and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant.