SATNAM SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. Appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit, claiming that they are owners to the extent of half share of the property forming estate of their grandfather late Rabbal, because they were the sons and daughter of a predeceased son of said Rabbal, and the defendant being the other son of said Rabbal was the owner to the extent of the remaining half. They further alleged that the respondent-defendant Gurdev Singh, the other son of Rabbal, had, on the basis of a Will, allegedly executed by said Rabbal, got

(2.) /3rd of his estate mutated in his favour, while 1/3rd share of the estate was mutated in their (appellants-plaintiffs) favour. Further, it was alleged that the defendant had got mutated some very valuable part of the property of Rabbal mutated in his favour on the basis of a deed of gift purporting to have been executed by Rabbal in his favour. It was alleged that both the Will and the gift deed were bogus documents and that Rabbal had never executed those documents. 2. Defendant contested the suit. He alleged that Rabbal had made a Will in respect of 2/3rd part of his estate in his favour, while 1/3rd of the estate was given to the plaintiffs, who are the sons and daughter of his predeceased brother Roshan Lal. It was also alleged that Rabbal had made a gift in respect of some portion of his property and on the basis of that gift mutation had been attested in favour of the defendant. Certain preliminary objections were also raised.

(3.) LEARNED counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs has alleged that the finding of the two Courts below with respect to the Will is contrary to the evidence on record and that as a matter of fact the execution of the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. According to him, though the Will purports to have been registered on the day next following the day of the execution, one of the attesting witnesses examined by the defendant, namely DW-7 Roshan Lal, has stated that the Will was presented for registration and was registered on the very day of its execution. It is also his contention that the Will comprises of two sheets of paper, but only first sheet is signed by the witnesses and this is also a suspicious circumstance indicating that the Will is not genuine. It is also his contention that non-signing on second sheet of the Will by the attesting witnesses amounts to defective attestation and, therefore, there cannot be any escape from the finding that the Will is not valid and lawful.