Supreme Court restores trial court's partition decree, emphasizes proof of Will and witness examination.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's preliminary decree of partition, ruling that the Will's execution was not proved, and suspicious circumstances were not adequately addressed. The Court emphasized strict compliance with statutory requirements for proving a Will and the importance of examining attesting witnesses to dispel suspicions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Will dated 02.01.1992.
2. Compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
3. Application of Section 71 of the Evidence Act.
4. Examination of attesting witnesses.
5. Suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Will dated 02.01.1992:
The primary issue in the case was whether the Will dated 02.01.1992, purportedly executed by Suhagwanti, was valid. The trial court held that the Will was not proved as Surinder Pal Sharma failed to examine any of the attesting witnesses as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the Will was attested by two witnesses and thus satisfied the requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's reliance on Section 71 of the Evidence Act was misplaced as Ramesh Kumar, one of the attesting witnesses, was not examined.

2. Compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act:
Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act mandates that a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires at least one attesting witness to be called to prove the execution of the Will. The trial court found that Surinder Pal Sharma did not comply with these provisions as he failed to examine any attesting witnesses. The High Court, however, held that the Will was attested by two witnesses and presumed its validity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with these provisions and found that the High Court erred in its application of the law.

3. Application of Section 71 of the Evidence Act:
Section 71 of the Evidence Act allows for the proof of execution of a document by other evidence if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution. The High Court applied this provision, holding that the Will was proved as the attesting witness Mr. M.N. Sharma was not available. The Supreme Court, however, held that recourse to Section 71 was impermissible without examining Ramesh Kumar, the other attesting witness. The Court clarified that Section 71 could only be invoked if all attesting witnesses deny or do not recollect the execution.

4. Examination of Attesting Witnesses:
The trial court found that Surinder Pal Sharma failed to examine any attesting witnesses, which was necessary to prove the execution of the Will. The High Court held that efforts were made to summon Mr. M.N. Sharma, but he did not appear. The Supreme Court emphasized that Ramesh Kumar, the other attesting witness, should have been examined, and his non-examination rendered the Will unproved. The Court reiterated the importance of examining attesting witnesses to satisfy the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

5. Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding the Execution of the Will:
The Supreme Court noted several suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. The Will was described as a "Will Deed," and Surinder Pal Sharma claimed ownership of the tenement even during his mother's lifetime. Raj Kumari's testimony indicated that her husband's signature on the Will was obtained under false pretenses. The Court highlighted that the Will's contents and the surrounding circumstances raised legitimate suspicions about its validity. The Court held that Surinder Pal Sharma failed to remove these suspicions and prove the Will's execution by "other evidence" as required under Section 71 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's preliminary decree of partition. The Court held that the execution of the Will was not proved, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution were not adequately addressed. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the statutory requirements for proving a Will and the importance of examining attesting witnesses to remove any legitimate suspicions.

---