Regular Second Appeal No. 1157 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1157 of 2006 Date of Order: 07.07.2009 Bant Singh ....Appellant Versus Amar Kaur and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Aminder Singh,Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant challenges the judgment and decrees dated 05.09.2003 and 23.09.2005, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur and the District Judge, Sangrur, decreeing the suit filed by the respondents and dismissing his appeal, respectively. Amar Kaur plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed a suit for declaration that she and Surjit Kaur are owners of 1/5 share of the suit land, being daughters of the original owner Gurmukh Singh. In essence, Amar Kaur pleaded that as registered will No.27 executed by Gurmukh Singh on 08.07.1985 was cancelled by cancellation deed no.39 dated 30.07.1987, inheritance to the estate of Gurmukh Singh would open by way of natural succession. She also prayed for grant of a declaration that the mutation sanctioned by the Collector in favour of her brothers Ajaib Singh, Bant Singh and Ram Singh be set aside. In response to the pleadings in the plaint, the appellant alone contested the suit as his brothers admitted the fact that the will dated 08.07.1985 had been cancelled. The appellant pleaded that the Regular Second Appeal No. 1157 of 2006 -2- cancellation deed dated 30.07.1987 was forged as is apparent from the statement made by Amar kaur, before the revenue authorities accepting the correctness of will dated 08.07.1985. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues and called upon the parties to lead evidence. “1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.9 are the owners to the extent of 1/5th share in the land in dispute?OPP 2. Whether the will dated 8.7.1985 has been cancelled by Gurmukh Singh by registered cancellation deed No.39 dated 30.07.1987. If so its effect?OPP 3. Whether the mutation No.9369 is null and void? If so its effect?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and possession as prayed for?OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by her act and conduct?OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 9. Whether the defendant No.2 is entitled to special costs?OPD 10. Relief.” After considering the respective stands taken in the pleadings, the evidence adduced and arguments addressed, the trial court held that Regular Second Appeal No. 1157 of 2006 -3- prior to his demise Gurmukh Singh had cancelled the will dated 08.07.1985 by way of a registered cancellation deed dated 30.07.1987. Consequently, the suit for declaration and joint possession of 1/5th share was decreed. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The District Judge, Sangrur, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.1 has failed to prove the cancellation deed. Bhan Singh PW4, husband of respondent no.1 admittedly participated in the execution of the cancellation deed, making it apparent that the cancellation deed was obtained by coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation. It is further urged that as respondent no.1 made a statement before the Collector that the mutation should be sanctioned on the basis of a will dated 08.07.1985, she is estopped from filing the instant suit. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and find no reason whether in law or in fact to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The bone of contention between the parties is the cancellation deed dated 30.07.1987. In order to establish the execution of the cancellation deed by Gurmukh Singh, respondent no.1 has produced Mangat Rai Singla PW2, scribe of the cancellation deed, PW3 and PW4 Ruldu Singh, Lambardar and Bhan Singh, the attesting witnesses. They have deposed in unison about the execution and registration of cancellation deed. In addition, PW6 Dr. Atul Kumar Singla, Hand writing and Finger Print Expert has opined that the disputed thumb impressions, on the cancellation deed match the admitted thumb impressions affixed on the will and a sale deed. On the basis of this evidence the courts below have held that the execution of the cancellation deed by Gurmukh Singh, has been established. Regular Second Appeal No. 1157 of 2006 -4- An argument raised by counsel for the appellant that as PW4 Bhan Singh, the husband of respondent no.1, has participated in the execution of the cancellation deed it should be rejected, merits rejection. The mere presence of relative, is by itself insufficient to reject the cancellation deed till such time as it is established that his presence was on account of any undue influence, coercion or fraud. In the absence of any evidence to establish undue influence, coercion, or fraud in the execution of the cancellation deed, the mere presence of Bhan Singh husband of respondent no.1 is insufficient to hold that the courts below committed an error in accepting the cancellation deed. The assertion that Amar Kaur suffered a statement before the revenue authorities accepting the correctness of the will is entirely irrelevant as the registered cancellation deed has been duly proved in accordance with law. The questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant are neither questions of law nor substantial questions of law, as would enable this court to hold that the impugned judgments require interference. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not call for interference. The present appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. July 07, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE