MAJOR SINGH versus RATTAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 10-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MAJOR SINGH 
v. 
RATTAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 10, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section JOO. 
Second appeal-Question of /aw-Power of High Court to inteifere. 
Will-Execution not disputed-Question whether will was executed in 
n01mal circumstances-Suit filed by respondent for declaration on the basis 
of will-Dismissal of suit by Trial Cowt-Affim1ation by first Appellate 
Court-Trial Court and first Appellate Cowt relying upon two suspicious 
circumstances-One will was not produced at the earliest point of time-Two 
D evidence of attestators was not reliable-On second appeal High Court held 
rejection of testimony of attestator-witnesses was not correct-Appeal before 
Supreme Court-Held-When the courts below had rejected and disbelieved 
the evidence on the ground that the propounder had not properly discharged 
his duty, it is the duty of the High Court to con.sider whether the reasons given 
E by the courts below were sustainable in la~ 
17te High Court has rightly found 
that the reasons given by the courts below were flim~Thus there was 
substantial question of law that has arisen for consideration and the High 
Court has rightly considered the question. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 718 of 
F 
1986. 
' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.85 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2830 of 1980. 
M.L. Verma, Seeraj Bagga and Ms. S. Bagga for the Appellant. 
G 
Ujjagar Singh, AK Sanghi and J.M. Khanna for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the learned 
H Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, made on 
828 
' ' 
.. 
MAIORSINGH v. RATIANSINGH· 
829 
July, 11, 1985 in SA No. 2830/80. 
A 
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-
B 
title of his sister, Dayal Kaur, Rattan Singh & Daulat Singh had three 
sisters by name Rallo, Dayal Kaur and Inder Kaur. Dayal Kaur got mutated 
the properties to the extent of 1/3rd share to each of the sister in the 
mutation proceedings. Subsequently, the respondents filed a suit for dec-
laration 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 C 
Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Thus this 
appeal by special leave. 
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the High Court 
could not interfere under Section 100, CPC since the suspicious features of D 
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 no substantial question of law for decision E 
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 circumstances? The 
F 
courts below relied heavily on two suspicious features, namely, the Will was 
not produced at the earliest point of time, it was produced sometime before 
the trial. Secondly, the attestators were disbelieved on two grounds, name-
ly, that Hari Singh, one of the attestators had not disclosed that the Will 
was not executed when the mutation was effected in his presence. The High G 
Court has explained that the mutation was not properly proved 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 attestator, Hari Singh's evidence was found to be not correct. As H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.