Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MAJOR SING
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RATTAN SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court, Chandigarh, made on July 11, 1985 in SA No.2830/80.
The admitted facts are that the respondents Rattan
Singh & Daulat Singh were brothers. Daulat Singh had
executed a will on January 11, 1974 under Ex. PA bequeathing
his property to Rattan Singh who died on January 19, 1974.
It would appear that the appellant is a predecessor-in title
of his sister, Dayal Kaur. Rattan Singh & Daulat Singh had
three sisters by name Rallo, Dayal Kaur and Inder Kaur.
Dayal Kuar got mutated the properties to the extant of 1/3rd
share to each of the sister in the mutation proceedings.
subsequently, the respondents filed a suit for declaration
on the basis of the will. The trial Court dismissed the
suit. On appeal, it was confirmed. As stated earlier, in the
second appeal, the High court allowed the appeal and decreed
the suit as prayed for, Thus this appeal by special leave.
Leraned counsel for the appellant has contended that
the High Court could not interfere under Section 100, CPC
since the suspicious features of the will are questions of
facts. The trial Court and the appellate Court had
considered the suspicious feature and were not inclined to
interfere. It is the duty of the propounder of the Will to
establish that Will was validly executed removing all the
suspicious features satisfying conscience of the Court. In
that behalf, the high Court was not justified in interfering
in the second appeal as there was on substantial question of
law for decision under Section 100 CPC. It is seen that it
is an admitted position that Rattan Singh, on coming to know
that his brother was unwell, had gone from Calcutta to see
him. After his coming, the Will came to be executed and the
execution of the Will also was not disputed. The only
question is: whether the Will came to be executed in the
normal cirumstances? The courts below relied heavily on two
suspicious features, namely, the Will was not produced at
the earliest point of them, it was produced sometime before
the trial. secondly, the at testators were disbelieved on
two grounds, namely, that Hari Singh, one of the at
testators had not disclosed that the Will was not executed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
when the mutation was effected in his presence. The High
Court has explained that the mutation was not properly
removed and that there was no reason to disbelieve that
fact. The High Court had perused the original as well as the
photocopy of the will produced in the trial Court in the
first instance. The High Court has found that there is no
interpolation in the original Will. Therefore, the rejection
of the evidence of the attestaor, Hari Singh’s evidence was
found to be not correct. As regards the other attestator-
witness, by name Gurdev Singh, It was disbelieved on the
ground that he filed a suit in a litigation against Jeet
Singh. It was hardly a ground to disbelieve the evidence of
the attestator’s evidence. Under these circumstances, when
the courts below had rejected and disbelieve the evidence on
the ground that the propounder had not properly discharged
his duty, it is the duty of the High Court to consider
whether the reasons given by the courts below were
sustainable in law. In view of the above reasoning of the
trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court, necessarily
the High Court requires to go into that question to test the
reasons. in this perspective, the High Court has rightly
gone into that question and found that the reasons given by
the courts below are flimsy. Thus there is substantial
question of law that has arisen for consideration and the
High Court has rightly considered the question. We are
entirely agree with the High Court.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.