Vs. Atma Ram & Ors  INSC 302 (22 February 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 AIR 1558 JT 1996 (3) 645 1996 SCALE (2)831
O R D
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated April 2, 1979 of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in L.P.A. No.521 of 1975. The Division Bench of the High Court has gone
into the genuineness of the Will executed by Bhagwana on October 15, 1957. Bhagwana died on September 2, 1958. The appellant laid claim over the
property of her father. The trial Court and the appellate Court upheld the Will
and denied the relief. Learned single Judge in Second Appeal No.451 of 1972 by
order dated September
16, 1975 set aside the
judgment and granted the decree. In the Letters Patent Appeal the Division
Bench restored the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit. Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
counsel for the appellant, after elaborate preparation of the facts, though of
complicated nature, has contended that in the first litigation between the
collaterals the appellant, the appellant was not a party.
courts below, having held that there is no proof of collateralship, ought not
to have gone into the genuineness of the Will and record a finding in that behalf.
Even otherwise, the finding does not find the appellant a party to the earlier
suit. In this suit, admittedly, however, the Will was not produced and one of
the testators was not examined. Learned single Judge of the High Court found
that the execution of the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances.
burden is on the propounder of the Will to remove all the doubts regarding the
genuineness of the Will and, therefore, the Division Bench, the trial Court as
also the appellate Court were not right in cognising the Will. Having
considered the contention with reference to the evidence on record and the
findings recorded by the Division Bench and also the trial Court and the
appellate Court, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench
cannot be said to be unwarranted. It is the case of the respondents that the
Will was lost. Consequently, permission was given to lead secondary evidence
and on the basis thereof, secondary evidence was laid by the parties and the
witnesses were examined in proof of the Will and in rebuttal thereof.
trial court and the appellate Court have considered all the facts and
circumstances and have recorded a finding that the Will was executed by Bhagwana
in favour of Atma Ram respondent No.1.
finding of fact, though the learned single Judge could go into the question of
law, he confined his consideration in a second appeal under a limited
would appear that the learned single Judge trenched as if he was the first
appellate court and considered the evidence by himself and came to the
conclusion that the genuineness of the Will had not been proved. The Division
Bench, therefore, has rightly gone into the question within the parameters of
law and held that the learned single Judge was not right in reversing the
finding of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court. Thus, we
consider that there is no substantial question of law warranting interference.
appeal is accordingly dismissed.