reference about the fact that there was another son Mukhtiar Singh, who is the first defendant. All that it says towards the end of the Will is that he had got his property situate at Rajasthan partitioned and hence, he was making a Will. The two marginal witnesses, who have been examined as PW-3 and PW-4, Babu Singh and Munshi Singh, both of them have spoken about the fact that they saw the executant affixing thumb impression and that the executant saw the witnesses affixing their respective signature/thumb impression. But both of them had not uttered anything about why Sher Singh was not making a bequest in favour of his other son. Learned counsel would want me to believe that there was evidence to show that there are considerable extent of properties at Rajasthan and all these properties had been left with another son Mukhtiar Singh and therefore, he was not making a bequest in favour of other son. In evidence, the said fact has been actually denied and the contention of the defendant Mukhtiar Singh is that the properties in Rajasthan was in the range of 230 acres whereas the suit property was situated in Punjab which was 1/10th of the whole extent of about 20 to 23 acres. While I have no difficulty in accepting an argument that a Will is invariably an instrument to take away from the normal rule of succession and disinheritance of any one heir will not itself be a reason to suspect the document, I would expect that proper reason to be given by the testator at the time when he was making a bequest. Absence of any reference to another son is grossly suspicious. Even if there was absence of recital, two witnesses who were said to have been present could not have simply gone without asking the testator as to why he was not making a bequest in favour of other son. Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.09.17 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
