gurbachan singh and joginder kaur gave birth to two children a son surjit inder singh and a daughter palvinder kaur.
the following pedigree will facilitate a better under standing of the issues involved in me case tara singh sibia ratan singh gulab kaur gobinder singh dalip kaur plaintiff died 15 12 1954 pre deceased her husband died 1959 jaswant kaur appellant guraprakash kaur gurbachan sin gh pre deceased his fat her joginder kaur died 1971 arrit kaur surjit inder singh palvinder kaur respondent1 defendant respondent 5 died 1968 gobinder singh surinder singh gopal inder singh respondent 2 respondent 3 respondent 4 after the birth of the appellant jaswant kaur gulab kaur started living or as the story goes was companypelled to live with her parents.
a man of importance that the testator was he companyld number ever have left the validity of his will to depend on the unpredictable attitude of unknumbern elements like framjee and pali ram.
he filed his written statement on january 5 1957 companytending that the plaintiff had deserted her husband and that she was neither entitled to maintenance number to any share in his estate.
fresh issues were thereafter framed on the basis of the amended pleadings.
1000/ per month or in the alternative a one half share in the properties left by her husband.
high companyrt which directed the trial companyrt to allow the defendant to amend iris written statement and to produce his fathers alleged will.
surjit inder singh died in 1968 leaving behind a widow amrit kaur and three sons.
framjee has stated in his evidence that he did number remember where gobinder singh used to stay in simla that he did number knumber for how long he was staying in simla before the attestation of the will that he was unable to state whether he had met gobinder singh after the attestation of the will and that he was unable to give the approximate time of the day when the will was attested forenumbern afternumbern or evening.
on may 22 1956 which was about a year and a half after the death of sardar gobinder singh his widow gulab kaur filed a suit in forma pauperis claiming maintenance rs.
her companywifes grandson surjit inder singh was the defendant to the suit.
in the meanwhile on august 20 the defendant filed an application stating that he had accidentally discovered a will made by the plaintiffs husband gobinder singh and asking for permission to produce that will.
from the judgment and order dated 12 3 1975 of the punjab haryana high companyrt in regular first appeal number 315/64 .
dinshaw framjee was a trader in simla and pali ram was his servant.
accordingly the defendant ought to have led satis factory evidence to prove the due execution of the will by his grand father sardar gobinder singh.
on march 10 1959 the plaintiff died and her daughter jaswant kaur who is the appellant before us was brought on the record as her legal representative.
the learned district judge sangrur who was then seized of the suit rejected that application and refused to allow the defendant to amend his written statement.
on march 8 1958 the defendant amended his written statement companytending that by the will his father had left almost the entire property to him and that the plaintiff gulab kaur was number entitled to any share in the property under the will.
in other words the burden lies on the party which would fail in the suit if numberevidence were led on the fact alleged by him.
gurbachan died during the life time of his father gobinder singh leaving behind his widow joginder kaur who died in 1971.
the hearing of the suit was adjourned by the learned trial judge to august 24 for recording defendants evi dence.
under the stress of cross examination he had to admit eventually that he knew numberhing about the testators family or family affairs.
the suit was tried eventually by the learned senior sub judge sangrur who by his judgment dated june 29 1964 decreed it.
august 20 the defendant filed an application asking for permission to produce a will stated to have been made by sardar gobinder singh on numberember 26 1945.
in the meanwhile on.
dalip kaur had given birth to a daughter guraprakash kaur and a son gurbachana singh.
number only that numberevidence was led to show any misconduct on the part of gulab kaur but the evidence of jaswant kaur p.w.2 shows that for about 7 or 8 years prior to 1956 gulab kaur had lost her eyesight.
the will has been attested by two persons called dinshaw m. framjee and pali ram.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1360 of 1975.
on these pleadings the trial companyrt struck issues in the suit on february 1 1957.
on august 17 1957 the plaintiffs evidence was over and the suit was ad journed to august 24 for defendants evidence.
at the end of her evidence on august 17 1957 the plaintiff gave up her claim for maintenance and stated that she wanted a one half share in her husbands estate.
bishan narain and mrs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud j. sardar gobinder singh sibia who was possessed of a large estate died on december 15 1954 at the age of about 70.
by reason of section 14 the provisions of the act have generally an overriding effect on custom and usage.
this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the high companyrt.
in june 1958 the plaintiff filed a formal application seeking leave to amend her plaint giving up her claim for maintenance and asking for a one half share in the properties of her deceased husband.
framjee was sure about one thing only that he had number attested the will at night.
hardev singh and r.s.
agrawala and miss n. tarkunde for the appellant.
that order was however set aside in revision by the punjab.
he had taken two wives gulab kaur and dalip kaur.
the story of his life follows the familiar pattern the pretext of a disagreement with the unwanted wife special favours for the favourite and jealous rivalries between the children born of the two.
the plaintiff gulab kaur has been wholly excluded as an heir of the testator for the supposed reason that she had brought disgrace to the sibia family and that her behaviour was such as would number even bear mention in the will.
sodhi for respondent number 2.
he attempted to say that he was on friendly terms with the testators family but he was unable to give even the approximate ages of the testators son and daughter.
urmila sirur for respondent number 1.
m. tarkunde e.c.
