Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Will--Validity of--Suspicious circumstances

Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Sarwan Singh & Ors.
918 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Regular Second Appeal No.2236 of 2006
Surjit Singh & Ors.
v.
Sarwan Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 18/08/2009}
Present: Ms. Manu Goel, Advocate for the appellant (in both the appeals) and for the respondent in Cross-objections.
Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for respondent no.1 (in both the appeals) and for the cross objector in Cross- objection.
Service of remaining respondents in RSA No.2236 of 2006 dispensed with.
(A) Succession Act, 1925, S.63--Will--Validity of--Suspicious circumstances--Testator was 78 years old at time of alleged execution of Will--No evidence produced by propounder to prove that testator was in sound disposing mind at time of execution of Will--Scribe of will was not regular scribe and did not hail from village of testator--Neither thumb impressions nor signature of testator nor marginal witnesses on second page of will--Signature/thumb impression of marginal witness were in different ink than ink used for scribing the same--There were cuttings in Will--Suspicious circumstances remained unexplained by propounder--Alleged will not valid and legal--Wife of testator become owner in possession of land by way of natural succession. (P.17)
(B) Succession Act, 1925, S.63--Will--Validity of--Suspicious circumstances--Will alleged to be executed by ‘S’ in favour of her sister-in-law’s son--Deed writer stated that single thumb impression or signature of testator was obtained on will but there were two thumb impressions each of testator on first as well as second page--First page of will was typed in double space in beginning but towards end thereof space was reduced to accommodate full text of the same showed that thumb impression of ‘S’ were already in existence on some blank papers--Litigation had already started between plaintiff and ‘S’ in respect of property husband of ‘S’--Will was not got registered despite availability of services of Sub-Registrar--‘S’ died after about three days of alleged execution of Will--Plaintiff showed total ignorance about village of ‘S’ or about relations of husband of ‘S’ shows that plaintiff was not residing with ‘S’ nor was serving her during her life time--Will not legal and valid and rightly ignored. (P.18)
--------------