PREM SINGH Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal at the motion stage contains a stereo-typed and usual dispute that the respondent-plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners in possession of the agricultural land to the extent of 1/5th share therein located in village Santokha, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur being the son, daughter and husband of Smt. Dato deceased. The appellants claimed that the deceased had executed an unregistered Will dated 1.6.1984 vide which she had bequeathed 1/5th share of the total land measuring 154 Kanals 15 Marias in their favour and a mutation was duly sanctioned on the basis of the same, which was a valid document and, therefore, the aforesaid natural heirs were not entitled to the property in dispute.

(2.) Obviously, the controversy between the parties centered around the questions regarding the validity of the execution of the Will and as to whether the respondent-plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased Smt. Dato or not. The second question did not assume any importance. There was neither any evidence on record to controvert the claim of the status of the heirs nor was there any dispute of identity. So, the only question which remains is that of execution of the Will. As regard, the execution of the Will is concerned, the same was entered in the register of an Advocate Mr. O.P. Kaushal, who allegedly scribed the same and was examined as a witness during the course of evidence. While appearing in the witness box, he could not say as to why the natural heirs of the deceased were deprived of and instead of brother's sons i.e., the nephews were chosen to be the beneficiaries; even in this register there is some narrow margin where the entry was made; the Will remained unregistered. The attesting witness Fazal Masih was not the landowner of the said village; was not a Lambardar himself; the Will was allegedly executed in the complex of Tehsil at Gurdaspur where there was facility of registration but they did not dare to approach the Tehsildar; the Will was registered after two years of the death of Smt. Dato. Therefore, these suspicious circumstances could not be washed off in order to make the Will effective. There has been nothing on record to say that there could be any reason that Smt. Dato preferred her nephews than her own son, daughter and husband. She had no rift with them. The probability, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that Smt. Dato never lived at village Santokha and lived with the nephews does not appear correct. She is supposed to live with her husband and her own son and why to live with her nephews. So the matter taken from any angle, the appellant could not prove the validity of the Will and could not successfully claim a peculiar line of succession rather than a legal and natural one. Such a concurrent finding of fact and law does not require interference of any kind by this Court. Hence this appeal fails and is dismissed.