Birendra Singh Yadav, J. - (1.) The dispute is with respect to the inheritance of Puran Singh who died on 10th March, 1963. After his death mutation was sanctioned in favour of Ajaib Singh Defendant on the basis of registered will dated 3rd August, 1960 executed by Puran Singh. Ajaib Singh even entered into possession of the land. Thereupon the Plaintiffs Inder Singh and Ajmer Singh filed the instant suit for possession of the land left by Puran Singh. It was inter alia averred by them that Inder Singh Plaintiff had been adopted by Puran Singh and a formal deed of adoption had been executed by the adopter, got it registered. On 1st March, 1963 Puran Singh executed a will (Exhibit P. 2) in favour of both the Plaintiffs bequeathing his property to them. As this was the last will and testament of Puran Singh, therefore, they were entitled to the land. The Defendant contested the suit. He denied Inder Singh's adoption by Puran Singh. He also described the will propounded by the Plaintiffs as a forged document. He claimed that Puran Singh had executed a valid will (Exhibit D. 1) in his favour on 3rd August, 1960.
(2.) The other pleas taken by the parties are not material for the pur -purpose of disposal of this appeal. The learned trial court held that Puran Singh had adopted Inder Singh Plaintiff, who was his nephew. It was further held that the will Exhibit P. 2 dated 1st March, 1963 was validly executed -by Puran Singh in favour of the Plaintiffs. It was further held that the will Exhibit D. 1 dated 3rd August, 1960 by Puran Singh in favour of Ajaib Singh shall be deemed to have been cancelled by the subsequent will. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendant filed an appeal which was heard by learned District Judge, Rupnagar. He held that the will Exhibit P. 2 propounded by the Plaintiffs was not a genuine document. Before him the validity of the will Exhibit D. 1 dated 3rd August, 1960 was not challenged. He also held that Inder Singh was not treated by Puran Singh as his adopted son and mere execution of the deed of adoption would not establish the adoption under custom. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and dismissed the suit. The Plaintiffs have now come to this Court in second appeal.
(3.) The main argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants was that the conclusion reached by the learned District Judge that the genuineness of the will Exhibit P. 2 has not been proved is based upon conjectures. Before we examine the reasons advanced by the learned Judge for holding that the will in question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, I may quote here H. Venkatachala Iycnger v/s. B. N. Thimmajamma : A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 443, wherein their Lordships remarked as follows: x x x X X X Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signatures as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signatures of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounders case that the signature in question is the signature of the testatator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testators's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated ; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator ; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural; improbable or unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances ; or the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy ; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged. Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator - Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. Therefore for determining the validity of the will, Exhibit P. 2, propounded by the Plaintiff, the above observations will have to be kept in view.;