JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the “Sabha”). The challenge is to the judgment dated December 7, 1983, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appeal filed by respondent, Swami Rama Nand has been allowed and the order of revocation of succession certificate passed by learned Senior Judge, Jalandhar has been set aside.
2. The facts, which emerge from the record, show that on an application filed by Swami Rama Nand, a succession certificate was granted on November 9, 1977 in his favour by Senior Sub Judge with regard to the estate of Swami Brahma Nand. The claim of Swami Rama Nand was accepted on account of the fact that he claimed that he was chela of the deceased, Swami Brahma Nand. Later on an application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act was filed on February 21, 1978 by the Sabha for revocation of the aforesaid succession certificate on the allegations that Swami Brahma Nand, during his life time, had executed a registered will on June 20, 1971 in favour of the Sabha bequeathing all his moveable and immovable property in favour of the Sabha. Sabha claimed that Swami Rama Nand had obtained the succession certificate in question without disclosing the factum of will and without impleading the Sabha as a party in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate.
3. The application filed by the Sabha was challenged by Swami Rama Nand. It was claimed that on the basis of the succession certificate, the amounts in question had already been released and, as such, the succession certificate stood already implemented. On merits of the controversy, Swami Rama Nand claimed that no such will as was claimed by the Sabha, had ever been executed by Swami Brahma Nand in favour of the Sabha.
4. The learned trial judge on the basis of the evidence available on the record held that the will in question set up by the Sabha was proved and as per the said will the Sabha was entitled to the estate left behind by Swami Brahma Nand. Consequently, the application filed by Sanatan Dharam Sabha was allowed and the succession certificate dated November 9, 1977 granted in favour of Swami Rama Nand was ordered to be revoked.
5. Swami Rama Nand filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. The matter was re-examined by the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court on the basis of the reappraisal of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the will EX.A1, was not proved and shown to be executed by Swami Brahma Nand. It was held that the evidence produced by the Sabha was not sufficient to come to the conclusion that Swami Brahma Nand was in his sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the alleged will and, in any case, the witnesses produced by the Sabha could not prove that the said will was ever executed. The appellate Court also noticed the fact that Swami Brahma Nand belonged to Udasin sect and had raised the construction of the Mandir, wherein he had install idol of Siri Ram, Sita and Bhagwan Krishana and Shiv, and that Swami Rama Nand was concededly chela of Swami Brahma Nand since 1977 and was living with him throughout. It was also observed that the Sabha is altogether a different sect than the Udasin Sect and there was no occasion for Swami Brahma Nand to have executed the will in question in favour of the Sabha. Various other circumstances were also noticed by the appellate court to reject the will in question. Consequently, the appeal filed by Swami Rama Nand was allowed and the order of the trial judge revoking the succession certificate was set aside. It is, in these circumstances, that the Sabha has approached this Court through the present revision petition.
6. I have heard Ms. Alka Sarin, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and with her assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the will in question Ex.P1 was a registered document and the evidence produced by the Sabha duly proved the execution thereof by Swami Brahma Nand. Consequently, the learned Counsel has argued that the findings recorded by the appellate Court are contrary to the evidence on record and cannot be sustained.
8. I have duly considered the arguments of the learned Counsel and having gone through the record of the case with her assistance, I find that there is no merit in the present revision petition.
9. The learned Additional District Judge, while discussing the entire evidence, has taken note of the fact that the will in question was not shown to be duly proved. The will in question was shown to be scribed by one Jagdish Chander who had since died and his son Subhash Chander had appeared as AW1 to prove the fact that the contents of the will were in the handwriting of his deceased-father and that the Will in question was scribed by him. However, the said witness in his cross-examination had admitted that he was unable to read the entries in the register maintained by his father. He was not present at the time of execution of the Will. Another witness produced by the Sabha is Achhru Ram, who claimed himself to be an attesting witness of the Will Ex.A1. The aforesaid Achhru Ram was posted in Punjab National Bank wherein Swami Brahma Nand had an account. Achhru Ram claimed that lie had become very close to Swami Brahma Nand. However, it was admitted by Achhru Ram that he never used to visit the mandir set up by Swami Brahma Nand. The other attesting witness of the will has not been produced by the petitioner for the reasons best known to it. The appellate Court has also noticed the fact that even in the Will Ex.Al, it has been mentioned that Swami Brahma Nand had a chela, named, Swami Rama Nand, who was helping him in the worshipping of the mandir etc. In these circumstances there is absolutely no explanation in the Will as to why Swami Brahma Nand, had been excluded from the estate left behind by Swami Brahma Nand when Swami Brahma Nand had no other person who could succeed to his property.
10. The appellate court has also taken note of the fact, as admitted by Achhru Ram AW3, that Swami Brahma Nand was suffering from a disease for the last 6/7 years and was seriously ill for the last 2/3 years prior to the execution of the will. Even an application is shown to have been moved on behalf of Swami Brahma Nand before the Tehsildar Jalandhar to the effect that he was unable to move and attend the office of the Sub Registrar and, therefore, the Sub Registrar was requested to attest the will at his residence. The details of the disease suffered by Swami Brahma Nand have not been proved on record. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner to show that Swami Brahma Nand possessed due mental faculties, when he had allegedly executed the will in question. Swami Brahma Nand had died on October 24, 1974. The application for revocation of the succession certificate had been moved by Sanatan Dharam Sabha on February 21, 1978. No steps whatsoever were taken by Sanatan Dharam Sabha for a period of more than 3 1/2 years. No explanation has been rendered in this regard.
11. In these circumstances, I do not find that the findings of fact arrived at by the learned appellate court suffer from any infirmity requiring any interference from this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. As a matter of fact reappraisal of evidence is not even permissible to this Court in exercise of its revisional powers.
12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, 1 do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.