http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GURDIAL KAUR AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KARTAR KAUR AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/03/1998

BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  is directed  against the  judgement  dated November 26,  1984 passed  by the  Punjab and  Haryana  High Court in Appeal No. 2995 of 1984. By the impugned judgement, the High  Court dismissed  the said appeal by which the will stated to  have been  executed by one Harnam Singh in favour of the  appellants was not accepted to be a valid one by the learned District  Judge in setting aside the order passed by the Trial  Court. There  is no dispute in this case that the will in  question was  a registered  will and  there  is  an endorsement by  the Sub-Registrar  that the executant of the will was introduced to him by one Puran Singh, the Lambardar of a village and the executant had admitted the execution of the will in his presence and also signed in his presence.      The Court of Appeal below has indicated several factors which according  to the learned Judge, had raised reasonable suspicion about  the genuineness  and valid execution of the said will.  It has  been indicated  that some of the natural heirs had  been disinherited  in the  said will  without any reason for  such action.  It has  also been  indicated  that there was  not  even  a  whisper  in  the  original  written statement filed  by the  legatees  to  the  will  about  the existence of such will in the Declaratory Suit filed against them. Only  when one  heir was left out and added as a party defendant, for  the first  time, in  the additional  written statement the  execution of will was mentioned.  The learned District Judge  has also  indicated the  reason for which he had  doubted  that  the  executant  of  the  will  had  been identified by  the Lambardar because the Sub-Registrar could not say  whether the Lambardar identifying the executant was a  Harijan  Lambardar  or  someone  else.  It  may  also  be indicated  here   that  the  scribe  of  the  will,  in  his deposition, stated that he did not know the executant of the will.      The law  is well-settled  that if  there is  suspicious circumstance about the execution of the will, it is the duty of the  person seeking declaration about the validity of the will  to  dispel  such  suspicious  circumstances.  In  this connection, , reference may be  made to the decision of this court in  Rani Purnima  Debi and  another Vs.Kumar Khagendra

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Narayan Deb  and another (AIR 1962 SC 567). It has been held in the  said decision  that if  a will  being registered and having regard  to the other circumstances, is accepted to be a genuine,  the mere fact that the will is a registered will it will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicions regarding the  validity of  the will where suspicions exist. it has been held that the broad statement by witness that he had witnessed  the testator  admitting execution of the will was  not  sufficient  to  dispel  suspicions  regarding  due execution  and  attestation  of  the  will.    it  has  been specifically held  that registration  of the  will by itself was not  sufficient to  remove the  suspicion, Relying on an earlier decision  of this Court reported in AIR 1959 SC 443, it has  been held  in  the  said  decision  that  where  the propounder was unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which  surrounded   the  question  of  valid  execution  and attestation of  the will,  no letters  of administration  in favour of the propounder could be granted.      The law  is well  settled that  the conscience  of  the Court must  be satisfied  that the  will in question was not only executed  and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 but it should also be found that the said  will was  the product  of the free volition of the executant  who  had  voluntarily  executed  the  same  after knowing  and   understanding  the   contents  of  the  will. Therefore, whenever  there is  any suspicious  circumstance, the obligation  is cast  on the  propounder of  the will  to dispel  suspicous   circumstance.    As  in  the  facts  and circumstances of  the   case, the  Court of Appeal below did not accept  the valid  execution of  the will  by indicating reasons and  coming to a specific finding that suspicion had not been dispelled to the satisfaction of the Court and such finding of  the Court  of Appeal  below has  also  has  been upheld by  the High  Court by  the impugned judgement, we do not find  any reason  to interfere  with such decision. This appeal, therefore,  fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.