M.L. Singhal, J.

1. Khazan Singh son of Rur Chand son of Hira Nand was owner and in possession of land measuring 55 kanals 17 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kanjari,,Tehsil Nabha.and he had half share in "Chah Pukhta" bearing Khasra No. 28/726 of Khewat Khatauni No. 60/83 per jamabandi 1973-74. He died in June, 1975 leaving behind his daughter Smt. Harbans Kaur as his only heir. She continued to be owner and in possession of the land and chah pukhta after the death of her father as his sole heir, At the time of the death of Khazan Singh, in some land sugar cane/nanna etc. was lying sown. In some land she got cultivated maize, fodder and ground nut through Avtar Singh son of Partap Singh, whom she had give it on batai. She apprehended her forcible dispossession from the land at the hands of Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh son of Bhagat Singh son of Basawa Singh and others-defendants on the basis of will alleged to have been-executed in their favour by Khazan Singh. Khazan Singh never executed any will in their favour. If they set up any will in their favour that is false and forged, having no effect on her rights so far as the inheritance of her father is concerned. On these allegations, Harbans Kaur daughter of Khazan Singh filed suit for permanent injunction against Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh son of Bhagat Singh s/o Basawa Singh etc. restraining them from interfering with herpossession of land and chah pukhta ibid; in the allernative, she prayed for decree for possession in case court came to the finding that Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh son of Bhagat Singh and others-defendants were in possession.

2. Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh-defendant No. 1 contested the suit of the plaintiff, urging that in fact he used to reside with Khazan Singh and was cultivating land belonging to Khazan Singh. He had sown crop standing in the land at the time of the death of Khazan Singh. After the death of Khazan Singh, he continued in possession of the land and cultivation thereof. It was denied that plaintiff was ever in possession of the land or that she got the land cultivated from Avtar Singh. It was urged that he was owner and in possession of the land in suit on account of registered will dated 13.5.1968 executed by Khazan Singh in his favour. Will dated 13.5.1968 was a genuine will, which had been executed in his favour by Khazan Singh. Khazan Singh was not a stranger to him as would be evident from the pedigree table given below:-

Rur Singh

|

______________________|____________________

| |

Khazan Singh Basawa Singh

(died in June 1975) |

| |

Harbans Kaur |

(married to |

(Hari Singh |

in 1942) ________________________|________________

| |

Bhagat Singh Kartar Singh

| |

Daljin |

der ____________________________|__________

Singh | | | |

Jarnail Amarjit Tarloc Jaswant

Singh Singh han Singh

Singh

3. He was thus the grandson of Basawa Singh who was real brother of Khazan Singh. Khazan Singh had no son. He had one daughter named Smt. Harbans Kaur, who was married long ago. It was urged that this father Bhagat Singh died when he was only 2/3" years old. After the death of Bhagat Singh, he (Khazan Singh) began residing with him (Daljinder Singh) and serving him and looking after his land. It was in lieu ofmi the services being rendered by him, which Khazan Singh reciprocated and showered love and affection on him and became disposed to executing will in his favour datcd 13.5.1968. Will was presented for registration to Sub Registrar, Nabha which was duly registered by him. It was the last will of Khazan Singh.

4. Kartar Singh son of Basawa Singh son of Rur Singh and others-defendants No. 2 to 6 filed separate written statement, contesting the suit of the plaintiff-Harbans Kaur. It was urged that Khazan Singh had executed will in their favour on 17.12.1970 which was his last will and testament. Plaintiff had nothing to do with the inheritance of Khazan Singh when he had executed will in their favour dated 17.12.1970 and they are owners and in possession of the property in suit on account of will dated 17.12.1970.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether Khazan Singh executed a valid will dated 13.5.1968 in favour of defendant No. 1, if so its effect OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit and OPP

3. Whether Khazan Singh executed a valid will dated 17.12.1970 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 6 OPP

4. If issue No. 1, 2 and 3 are not proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land OPD

5. Relief.

6. Vide order dated 3.8.1979, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amloh decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession in view of his findings that Khazan Singh had not executed any will dated 13.5.1968 in favour of Daljin-der Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh-defendant and also he had not executed any will dated 17.12.1970 in favour of Kartar Singh etc. defendants No. 2 to 6.

7. Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh son of Bhagat Singh defendant went in appeal against the decree of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amloh dated 3.8.1979.

8. Appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 20.1.1981.

9. Still not satisfied, Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh has come up in further appeal to this court.

10. In this case, it is not required to be determined whether will Ex.D-1 was or was not valid because Kartar Singh etc. defendants-No. 2 to 6 have not filed any appeal to this Court against the findings of the two courts below whereby they found against this will and held it false and forged. In this appeal, therefore, thrust would be only to determining "whether will Ex.DW8/A dated 13.8.1968 had or had not been executed by Khazan Singh in favour of Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh to the exclusion of his only child-Smt. Harbans Kaur"

11. Will Ex.DW8/A was scribed by Nathu Lal. It was attested by Bir Singh son of Sunder Singh of village Khanyan and Niranjan Singh, Sarpanch of village Raipur, Bir Singh was dead and as such could not be produced to support this will. Nathu La! and Niranjan Singh appeared and supported this will. Dewan K.S. Puri, Document Expert, Patiala compared the purported thumb impressions of Khazan Singh appearing on will with his admitted thumb impressions and opined that the thumb impressions tallied.

12. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that will Ex.DWS/A should be held to have been executed by Khazan Singh in favour of Daljinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh-appellant from the statements of Niranjan Singh DW who is ifs attesting witness and Nathu La! who is its scribe more so, when will Ex.DW8/A is natural and speaks of the mind of the testator who did not have any male issue but had only a daughter who had been married long ago. It was submitted that will Ex.DWS/A is registered. Niranjan Singh DW8 stated that he is the attesting witness of Will Ex. DW8/A which was scribed by Nathu Lal. Other attesling witness of this will is Bir Singh. Khazan Singh thumb marked the will after it had been read over to Khazan Singh who admitted the same to be correct. He and Bir Singh attested the will in the presence of Khazan Singh after Khazan Singh had admitted the same to be correct. Will dated 13.8.1968 could not be produced for registration that day. It was produced for registration before the Sub Regislrar on 14.8.196S. It could nut be registered that day. Itwas registered on 28.8.1968. Sub Registrar also read out the will to Khazan Singh and them. Khazan Singh thumb marked the will before the Sub Registrar and they also thumb marked and will was registered: It was submitted that will was natural, inasmuch as Daljinder Singhs father Bhagat Singh died in or about the year 1958. At that time, Daljinder Singh was two-four years old. Two years after the death of Bhagat Singh, Khazan Singhs wife died. He was brought up by Khazan. Singh Khazan Singh was putting up with Daljinder Singh. His mother used to cook meals for Khazan Singh and he was earlier cultivating the land of Khazan Singh, Harbans Kaur was residing at village Sahnewal. She was not on visiting terms with her father Khazan Singh. Last rites of Khazan Singh were performed by Daljinder Singh. Daljinder Singh and his mother immersed the last remains of Khazan Singh. It was submitted that Khazan Singh was acting for Daljinder Singh. He (Daljinder Singh) purchased plot from one Sucha Singh vide agreement Ex. D-2 dated 31.1.1975 and Khazan Singh acted for him. Khazan Singh negotiated with Gucha Singh on his behalf for that plot. It was submitted that Daljinder Singh was in close association with Khazan Singh and he was favourably disposed towards Daljinder Singh and wanted to benefit him. It.was submitted that Hari Singh husband of Smt. Harbans Kaur has stated that Daljinder Singhs father Bhagat Singh died about twenty years ago. Daljinder Singhs grand father Basawa Singh had died earlier to the death of Bhagat Singh. He married Harbans Kaur in the year 1942. Harbans Kaurs mother died two years after the death of Bhagat Singh. It was submitted that after the death of Daljinder Singhs father, Daljinder Singh was brought up by Khazan Singh and Khazan Singh was looked after and served by Daljinder Singh and his mother. It was submitted that Harbans Kaur was married long ago and there is recital in the will that he had spent a lot on his daughters marriage and as such was bequeathing in favour of Daljinder Singh.

13. It was submitted that will Ex.DW8/A is registered. Khazan Singh died in the year 1975. It was submitted that will Ex. DW8/A was thus allowed io hold the field for 7 years. Will Ex. DW8/A was natural inasmuch as there was none to look after and bring up Daijinder Singh after the death of his father when he was only 2/3 years old. It was submitted that Khazan Singh began pulling up with Daljinder Singh, Khazan Singhs wife died 2 yeas after the death of Daljinder Singhs father and thus Khazan Singh became in need of Daljinder Singh and his mother for his needs.

14. Will Ex.DW8/A is quite natural inasmuch as it is in favour of Khazan Singhs real brothers grandson whose father had died when he was 2/3 years old and after whose fathers death he was brought up by Khazan Singh and Khazan Singh was looked after by Daljinder Singh and his mother. Will Ex. DW8/A is registered one. It held that field for 7 long years. Fact that Daljinder Singh had association with Khazan Singh is clear from the fact that plot was sold by Sucha Singh to Daljinder Singh vide deed Ex.D-2. On that deed, Khazan Singh figures as acting for Daljinder Singh. Kartar Singh-defendant attested deed Ex.D-2. This means that Kartar Singh is also subscribing to the version of Daljinder Singh that he was in association with Khazan Singh. Will Ex.DW8/A was refused to be given effect to by the two courts below for reasons which are not at all tenable and which are alien to the requirement which governs the appreciation of evidence in respect of wills. Both the courts below refused to give effect to Will Ex.DW8/A saying that none of the attesting witnesses belongs to village Ban-jari i.e. the village of Khazan Singh. Bir Singh belonged to village Khanyan while Niranjan Singh belonged to village Raipur. Another reason which weighed w with them while discarding Will Ex.DW8/A is that in the year, 1968. Daljinder Singh was 8/9 years old and it is difficult to believe that he was rendering any service to Khazan Singh or will was the result of any services being rendered by Daljinder Singh to Khazan Singh and Daljinder Singhs mother should have come forward to say that she was serving Khazan Singh and she has not come forward to say so,

15. In my opinion, both the reasons given by the two courts below for discarding Will Ex.DW8/A are alien to the principles which govern the appreciation of evidence so far as will is concerned. There were two contestants who were staking their claim to the property of Khazan Singh from his own clan. One was Datjinder Singh and other was Karlar Singh. It Khazan Singh had taken people from his own village to attest the will and they had disclosed about the will in favour of Daljinder Singh to Karlar Singh and his sons or they themselves had come to know of the will in favour of Daljinder Singh, Khazan Singh would have exposed himself to the displeasure of Kartar Singh and his sons. Niranjan Singh DW8 who is attesting witness of this will was not stranger to Khazan Singh. He stated that his village is at a distance of 3/4 kilometres from the village of Khazan Singh and Khazan Singh had been on visiting terms with him.

16. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Harbans Kaur-respondent was Khazan Singhs daughter, rather his only child and there was no reason to deprive her of the inheritance of her father Khazan Singh. it was submitted that there in no evidence that Khazan Singh had strained relations with Harbans Kaur. He was on visiting terms with Harbans Kaur and had been attending the marriages of her children and making presents on those occasions.

17. Suffice it to say, Harbans Kaur was married in the year, 1942. When Daljinder Singh was being brought up and looked after by Khazan Singh from the period when he was 2/3 years old after the death of his father, who was his real nephew, it cannot be said that he would think of his daughter Harbans Kaur who was married about 26 years prior. Hari Singh PW has nowhere stated that after the death of his wife, Khazan Singh started putting up with him or he .and his wife Harbans Kaur served him. In his cross-objection, he has stated that Kartar Singh and his sons used to serve Khazan Singh. Kartar Singh is the son of Basawa Singh who was the real brother of Khazan Singh. It is, thus, apparent that Khazan Singh was not being served and looked after by Hari Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur. He was being looked after either by Daljinder Singh and his mother or by Kartar Singh and his sons. If Khazan Singh is found to have been looked after and served by Daljinder Singh and his mother, it would be natural for Khazan Singh to bestow upon Daljinder Singh his inheritance. Khazan Singh was being looked after and served by Daljinder Singh is apparent from this fact also that Khazan Singh acted for Daljinder Singh when the plot was purchased by Daljinder Singh from Sucha Singh vide deed Ex.D-2. After the death of Bhagat Singh, Khazan Singh and his wife took the responsibility of bringing up and looking after Daljinder Singh when Daljinder Singh was only 2/3 years old. Khazan Singhs wife died 2 years after the death of Bhagat Singh and after his wifes death in village Kanjari, Khazan Singh was the solitary soul apart from Daljinder Singh, his mother and nephew Kartar Singh and his sons.

18. It was held in Kartar Kaur and another v. Bhag-wan Kaur and others 1993 PLJ 63 : 1993(1) RCR 246 that registration of will is strong circumstance to prove its genuineness. Registration of will dispets doubt as to genuineness. Where testatordied about 4 years after execution and registration of will and took no steps to cancel or revoke will, it per se dispels suspicious circumstances allegedly attaching to wilt. Certificate of Registering Officer under Section 60 of the Registration Act is a relevant piece of evidence for proving execution of will. Initial onus that testator had a disposing mind and will was the result of his own volition lies on propounder of will, once it is proved that will was executed by a person of competent understanding. Burden of proving that will was invalid for any reason shifts to person who challenges will.

19. It will be useful to reproduce the observations of Lord Cronworth in Boyse v. Ross Borough 1857(6) HLC 2(A) "that if a will has been executed with due solemnities by a person of competent understanding and apparenfly a free agent, burden of proving that it was executed under undue influence is on the party who alleges it". These observations were approved by the Honble Supreme Court in Naresh Charan Das Gupta v. Paresh Charan Das Gupta and another .

20. In Satya Pal Gopal v. Smt. Panchubala Dasi and others. the Honble Supreme Court made the following observations :

"As we said there are certain outstanding feature of the case which should dispel all suspicion that may possibly otherwise attach itself to the will. The will was registered on June 30, 1946 and the testator died on March 12, 1950. That is to say, the testator lived for nearly four years after the execution and regislration of the will and yet he took no steps to have the will cancelled or to revoke it. It could not be that the will was somehow brought inio existence and the signatures of Nris-ingha Prosad Das were obtained on the will by practising some fraud. The endorsements on the will show that Nrisingha Prosad Das himself had presented the will for registration to the Sub Registrar and that the Sub Registrar had been called to the residence of Nrisingha Prosad Das for the purpose of registering the will. Nrisingha Prosad Das affixed his signature twice again in the presence of the Sub Registrar, as shown by the endorsements. The endorsements also show that execution was admitted by Nrisingha Prosad Das. As earlier mentioned by us, every page of the will has been signed by Nrisingha Prosad Das and at the foot of the will, a note listing the various corrections made has also been signed by Nrisingha Prosad Das. Therefore, there cannot even be the slightest doubt that the document was executed by Nrisingha Prosad Das, that its execution was admitted by Nrisingha Prosad Das before the Sub Registrar and that Nrisingha Prosad Das himself presented it to the Registrar having called him to his own residence for that purpose."

21. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant while relying on Smt. Chhoto v. Sardar Singh, 1994(1) Recent Revenue Reports 663 that non- bequest of property to children of testator does not make the will invalid, if the execution of the will, was satisfactorily proved. In the will, it is rccorded that he had performed marriage of his daughter, simply because testator has excluded his daughter from inheritance is not a suspicious circumstance to render will invalid.

22. In Inderjit Kaur alias Jagir Kaur v, Bhag Singh and another 1999(2) PLJ 431 : 2000(1) RCR 102 it was held that where a daughter who is sole heir of the deceased was deprived of his inheritance, is an important circumstance relevant in determining the validity of the will. Registered will executed in favour of nephews of testator-parties being agriculturists choice of testator to keep the land within the family is not abnormal.

23. In Biru Ram (deceased) through LRs v. Barkha Ram alias Barkat 1997(1) RCR 545 it was held registration of a will itself suggests that jt was executed by the testator while in sound disposing mind.

24. Why the w ill is resorted to It is resorted to, to deprive the natural heirs of inheritance. If inheritance is to pass on to a natural heir, then there will be no necessity of executing will. As such, merely because natural heir has been deprived, is no ground to discard the will. All that the court has to see is whether the will executed by a person while in sound disposing mind and it was his voluntary and conscious act. If it is proved to have been executed by a person while in sound disposing mind, will has to be given effect to even if it is viewed by the Court as a heartless act on the part of the testator in depriving his natural heir of his inheritance.

25. In this case will was not got registered on 13.8.1968 and 14.8.1968 because Sub Registrar was not available. It was got registered on 28.8.1968. If Daljinder Singh figured before the Sub Registrar on 28.8.1968 i.e. at the time of registration of the will, his presence before the Sub Registrar cannot be construed as impinging upon the validity of the will. Khazan Singh, Daljinder Singh and his mother were putting up together since the year 1958 i.e. when Daljinder Singhs father Bhagat Singh died. If Daljinder Singh was with Khazan Singh at the time of registration of the will, that shows rather his association with Khazan Singh and inextricability of each other. Land is in possession of Daljinder Singh. This also shows his association with Khazan Singh. It is not believable as stated by Hari Singh (husband of Harbans Kaur) that possession remained with Harbans Kaur for 2/3 months and thereafter Daljinder Singh stepped into possession. At the time of institution of the suit, possession was with Daljinder Singh.

26. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that Will Ex.DWS/A is a valid will, which had been executed by Khazan Singh in sound disposing mind in favour of Daljinder Singh who is his real brothers grandson and whom he had started bringing up, in the wake of his father Bhagat Singhs death when he was 2/3 years old and therefore Will Ex.DW8/A is held to have been executed by Khazan Singh in favour of Daljinder Singh and Daljinder Singh is entitled to inherit him. So, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. In consequence, judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-Harbans Kaur is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs through out.

27. Appeal allowed.