(Very important being related to forgery over already exiting thumb impression/signature as sometime documents are prepared by writing body writings lateron above the already existing thumb impressions/signatures obtained on a blank paper and the body writing show material inconsistency and in the said case report was given by Anil Kumar Gupta by giving observations that the bodywritings are showing material inconsistency showing that body writing is written lateron above the already existing thumb impression/signatures)
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sona Singh Etc vs Kakka Singh Etc on 25 March, 2019
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
RSA No. 1344 of 2002(O&M) Date of Decision:25.3.2019
Sona Singh @ Santa Singh and others —Appellants
vs.
Kakka Singh and others —Respondents
RSA No. 2056 of 2002(O&M)
Kakka Singh and others —Appellants
vs.
Sona Singh @ Santa Singh and others —Respondents
RSA No. 1422 of 2011(O&M)
Santa Singh @ Sona and others —Appellants
vs.
Kakka Singh —Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
To rebut evidence of the plaintiffs, one of the legal 4 of 20 representatives of defendant No. 5 appeared in the witness box and they examined Gurukaran Sher Singh Sodhi DW2, Joginder Singh DW3, Narinder Kumar Deed Writer DW4, scribe of Will dated 25.1.1990 Balbir Chand DW5 Senior Clerk from office of Financial Commissioner, Punjab S.P.Kamboj DW6 and Anil Kumar Gupta, Forensic Expert DW7.
Perusal of recitals in the Will would reveal that the Will was executed on account of the testator being satisfied with the services of his wife and to compensate her for the same. This recital in the Will gets falsified and belied in view of statement of Sona Singh @ Santa Singh plaintiff No. 1 as he stated in his cross examination that Labh Singh and Matto Bai had been maintaining separate residence. The appellate Court, on a detailed consideration of various circumstances highlighted by counsel 11 of 20 for the respondents therein, has rightly reversed findings of the trial court in respect of Will dated 14.10.1978. Counsel for the appellants has failed to advance any argument much less meaningful to convince this Court that circumstances noticed by the Appellate court are either not material and relevant or have not been rightly appreciated in the light of materials on record. In this view of the matter, findings of the Appellate Court in respect of Will dated 14.10.1978 need affirmation and ordered accordingly.
On examination of the Will with naked eye, it is sufficiently clear that space in the upper 8 or 9 lines is more as compared to the next 14 of 20 lower 8 or 9 lines. The space in the last four lines is too less as compared to the upper portion. Had this document been typed in a normal and natural course, spacing between the lines would have been uniform and not inconsistent as is visible in the disputed Will. There was no need for the typist to decrease or change spacing between the lines had the thumb impression been not present prior to body writing. The Will has been typed in an abnormal and unnatural course. Not only this, the position of thumb impression on the first page of the Will is not below name of the executant whereas the thumb impressions of the alleged attesting witness are below their names and particulars. Above all, it has been mentioned in the last line that in the presence of witnesses and after hearing and understanding, left thumb impression has been affixed. If the executant had affixed the thumb impression after completion of body writing of the Will and the same was read over and understood by the testator, there was no occasion for the scribe/typist to mention that left thumb impression has been affixed after hearing and understanding the contents in the presence of attesting witnesses. Irregular spacing between the lines, the position of thumb impression of the alleged testator when examined in the light of there being no explanation as to why the Will not got registered on 25.1.1990 if testator alongwith attesting witnesses was present in Tehsil Office on that date, goes a long way to conclude that the testator was not present on 25.1.1990 and this Will has been prepared on blank thumb impressions already existing on the paper used for preparing the Will. Neither the Appellate Court nor the trial court has examined the aspect of difference of dates of execution and registration from the aforesaid point of view.
In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, RSA Nos. 1344 of 2002 and 1422 of 2011 are dismissed. On the other hand, RSA No. 2056 of 2002 is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.