Kehar Singh vs Malkiat Singh
- SCC1994 Supp (1) SCC 25
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a subsequent will is alleged to have revoked an earlier will, the burden rests on the party relying on the subsequent will to prove its genuineness; if the subsequent will is found by the courts to be forged or not genuine on the basis of relevant circumstances, the earlier will cannot be held to have been revoked, and the absence of an express revocation clause in the earlier will does not prevent it from remaining the valid testamentary disposition.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. This is an appeal by grant of special leave petition by transferees of the land in dispute from one Kehar Singh who is said to have been the owner of it as a will was executed in his favour by one Bachna Singh, the admitted owner of the property. All the three courts including High Court have held against the appellant. It has been found that Bachna had executed a registered will in favour of plaintiff which was genuine, therefore, he was entitled to a decree for possession.
2. It is urged that Bachna Singh having executed a subsequent registered will in favour of the appellant the earlier will in law stood revoked even in absence of any recital to that effect in the will itself. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the findings of fact recorded by all the courts that the will in 26 favour of the appellant was not genuine. Reliance is placed on Ex. D-3, the power of attorney, executed by Bachna Singh in favour of the appellant on the day the will is said to have been executed and it is urged that since the right to sell the property in dispute was given to the appellant, an inference should be drawn against the existence of any earlier will. Although Ex. D-3 does not appear to have been referred as such either before the first appellate court or the second appellate court but the trial court found that since earlier power of attorney executed by Bachna Singh existed in favour of the appellant there could be no occasion to execute a second one. From this an inference was drawn that subsequent power of attorney said to have been executed by Bachna Singh was a document prepared for the specific purpose. The trial court further found that the will in favour of the appellant appeared to be executed in suspicious circumstances which could not be successfully, dispelled by the appellant. It could not be pointed out that the circumstances on which reliance was placed for recording the finding were irrelevant. Therefore, the orders of the three courts below cannot be assailed.
3. In the circumstances we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
27
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free