Jang Singh - Apellant vs Jeeto

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is defendant''s regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal was accepted and so the decree of the trial Court was set aside, thus decreeing the claim set up by the plaintiffs.

According to the appellant Smt. Baryami executed a Will dated 23.6.1983 in favour of Sham Singh, predecessorininterest of the present appellant and bequeathed her property divesting her daughtersplaintiffs and Smt. Bachni of their right to inherit. Will has been duly proved as per statement of the scribe and the attesting witnesses. Reasons have been assigned for excluding the daughters from inheritance. This way, the Court below has erred in law in reversing the decision of the trial Court and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant for a while and on perusing the judgments of the Courts below, I am of the view that the appeal is devoid of merit and so deserves to be dismissed. The lower appellate Court has dilated upon the various suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will i.e. the regular scribe has been found to be not maintaining the register in appropriate form; writing across the thumb impression of the deceased; and no cogent reason has been given for excluding the legitimate claim of the plaintiffsthe daughters.

Today, copy of the Will has been shown to me by the counsel representing the respondents. A mere look at the document by itself is sufficient to hold that the same has been executed in suspicious circumstances. It is well settled that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such a document is to be excluded. This conclusion is borne out on the basis of document Exhibit D1. Thus, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.

At this stage counsel for the appellant brought to my notice the decree which has been drawn by the lower appellate Court. Indeed there appears to be an error as while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs instead of stating that the plaintiffs'' suit is decreed to the extent of 1/10th of 180 kanals and 12 marlas it has been erroneously stated that suit stands decreed in respect of 180 kanals and 12 marlas. Necessary correction be made in the decree sheet.