Anil Kumar vs The General Public and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of District Judge, Ambala dated 31.8,1987 vide which he had dismissed the application for grant of probate,

The challenge to the judgment of District Judge Ambala, in this appeal is primarily on the ground that the Will executed by Sunder Lal deceased in favour of Anil Kumar, Appellant, was a duly registered Will, the authenticity of which was duly proved, but despite that the District Judge, Ambala had refused to grant the probate in favour of the Appellant on the plea that the Appellant has failed to prove the alleged Will Exhibit P-1 as its execution is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

Shri G.S. Punisa, Advocate, appearing for the Respondents has denied the execution of any Will by the deceased in favour of Anil Kumar as the deceased was not in sound disposing mind at the time of his death. As such, the said Will is not a genuine one.

I have given consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have had a good look at the record.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the case are that Anil Kumar Appellant, filed a petition for the grant of probate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 regarding the settlement of dues i.e. G.P.F., Group Insurance and Ex-gratia Grant etc. of late Shri Sunder Lal deceased son of Walaiti Ram S/o Chajju Ram, resident of House No. 82, Ward No. 18, Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Ropar, who was employed as peon in P.W.D. Public Health, H.M.T. Pinjore, Distt. Ambala.

On notice of the said petition, the State of Haryana and the Executive Engineer, Public Health, P.W.D. Sub Division, Panchkula put in appearance. Subsequently, Des Raj Verma, Som Nath Verma, brothers of the deceased and Smt. Sheela Devi and Vimla Devi, Sisters of the deceased put in appearance. The matter was contested by the aforesaid persons.

It is pertinent to mention that the alleged Will was executed on 18.10.1984 and Sunder Lal the alleged executor of the Will died on 19.10.1984 i.e. next day of the execution of the alleged Will. The material witness produced by the Appellant was Jamadar Singh, who is alleged to have attested the Will executed by Sunder Lal deceased, but his witness was not able to identify the photograph of the deceased mark ''A''.

On the other land, the Respondents produced Narinder Kumar Jain, Document Expert in order to prove that the signatures marked Q.1 to Q.4 on the Will dated 18.10.1984 did not tally with the standard signatures of Sunder Lal marked as Section 1 to 3 contained in Exhibits RW/1A and RW/1B, the latter document being an authority letter given by the deceased Sunder Lal to Dharam Pal RW-1. Dharam Pal was Clerk in Public Health Office, Pinjore, who while appearing as RW-1, had stated that Sunder Lal had signed the acquaintance roll in his presence while receiving salary for the month of July, 1984. He further deposed that Sunder Lal had also given an authority letter to his nephew who had produced a chit for receiving the salary, Photostat copy of the pay roll was also admitted in evidence as Ex. RW1/A. Sushil Kumar RW-3 had deposit that he was authorised by the deceased to draw his pay from his Department at Pinjore. Parkash Chand RW-4 had stated that during his life time, Sunder Lal used to reside at Pinjore.

It has come in the evidence of Som Nath (RW-5) that Sunder Lal was his younger brother and used to reside with him. He had been ill for about two months and 15 days before his death. His condition had deteriorated so much that he had to be helped in getting up from his bed. He was in a state of intermittent come and was not in a sound disposing mind. He was got admitted in General Hospital, Chandigarh and remained there for about three weeks. Des Raj father Anil Kumar Appellant in his absence had taken Sunder Lal from his house on the pretext that he would get him (Sunder Lal) medically treated. As per this witness, the signatures on the document Exhibit P-1 are not of Sunder Lal as he did not execute any Will during his life time.

The perusal of the life also reveals that Anil Kumar Appellant had filed a Civil Suit in the Court at Kharar which was subsequently withdrawn. Again he filed a civil suit at Ambala which was too withdrawn. The Respondents in the trial Court had also produced a certified copy of the order passed by Shri R.C. Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Ambala in civil suit titled as Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana etc. This suit was for restraining the Defendants from disbursing the amount of provident fund etc. relating to Sunder Lal deceased to any other person except the Plaintiff (Anil Kumar). In that suit, the Counsel for the Plaintiff Anil Kumar made a statement that he did not want to proceed with the suit and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. A certified copy of the order Ex. DX/1 passed by Shri M.S. Walia, Sub Judge 1st Class, Kharar on the petition u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of Succession Certificate was placed on record by the Respondents. On the statement of Anil Kumar, Appellant, that petition was also dismissed as withdrawn.

It has also come in evidence that Des Raj, who is the father of the Appellant though had appeared, but he had not supported his son Anil Kumar''s case. It is significant to note that Sunder Lal executed the alleged Will on 18.10.1984 i.e. just one day prior to his death. It has come in the evidence that Sunder Lal was suffering from intermittent coma and was taken by Des Raj father of the Appellant from the house of Som Nath to his house at Kurali on the pretext that he wanted to get him medically treated. The Appellant had filed two civil suits which were dismissed as withdrawn. The said suits must have been withdrawn as he was not sure of their success for want of any evidence.

The other important aspect of the matter is that Jamadar Singh, an attesting witness of the Will was not able to identify the photograph of that testator Sunder Lal. The document Expert produced by the Respondents deposed that the signatures marked Q-1 to Q-4 on the Will Exhibit P-1 did not tally with the standard signatures of Sunder Lal deceased. As such I am of the view that the Will Ex. P-1 was not signed by Sunder Lal deceased and its authenticity has not been proved. The evidence brought on record by the Respondents clearly indicates that Sunder Lal was not in a sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the alleged Will on 18.10.1984 being a patient of intermittent coma and he died next day.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.