K .S.JANJUA,J. - (1.)The facts of this case need not be recounted as they have been set out in the reference (24.12.91) of the Commissioner, Jalandhar. The Commissioner has recommended that revision petition be accepted, the impugned orders of the Collector and A.C.I. sanctioning the Mutation No. 1558 of Village Rajowal, Tehsil Phillaur regarding inheritance of Devi Ditta be sanctioned on basis of registered Will (3.10.1967) in favour of the petitioners.
(2.)I have heard the arguments of both the parties. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that a registered Will was executed on 3.10.1967 by Devi Ditta, who died on 22.12.75 but this Will was produced before the patwari on 1.4.89. For this delay of 14 years there were valid and sufficient reasons i.e. land in question was purchased by a cooperative society and Devi Ditta was one of its Members and he had been paying the instalments for the land of his share. The land was mutated in favour of Devi Ditta as late in the month of April, 1989. Shri J.S. Chahal, counsel for the respondent contended that subordinate revenue Officers have rightly ignored the registered Will because this said Will saw the light of the day after 14 years. The failure on the part of the petitioner to inform the Revenue Officers in time is violation of Section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The Will has not been proved as per provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. None of the witnesses appeared and proved its execution. All the legal heirs i.e. three sons and daughters have been ignored which is unnatural. All these points and the active participation of Ram Saran-petitioner in execution of the Will by his grand-father creates suspicious circumstances. The counsel for the petitioners was asked to explain whether a dead person can continue to be a member of the society. The counsel affirmed that membership goes to his heirs after the death of a member.
I have considered the arguments of both parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. I am inclined to accept the arguments of the counsel for the respondent. The reason for doubting the 'Will' are based on evidences and facts of this case. Normally the Revenue Officer has to rely on the registered 'Will' in the mutation proceedings but cannot do so without hearing the objections of the parties. This registered Will could be proved by producing even one marginal witness as required under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, this Will was produced after the death of executor Devi Ditta after 14 years without giving satisfactory reasons for delay and circumstances in which other legal heirs were ignored. I fully agree with the contentions of the Collector that in such cases the Revenue Officer should leave the parties claiming property under Will to assert their rights in the civil court. Accordingly, the reference is declined and order of the Collector is upheld. When Devi Ditta had died on 22.12.75, the Will should have been produced then and there. The membership of Cooperative Society should also be claimed by heirs as per Will. A dead man continued to be a member of Cooperative Society for 14 years. Membership ceases on death of the member as per law. Announced.