RSA No. 3575 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3575 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: September 29, 2010 Mann Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Gurdial Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The appellant/defendants-Mann Singh and other have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Gurdaspur, vide which he dismissed their appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 7 and 8/respondents No. 6 and 7 are the owners of the land in dispute and the mutation of that land sanctioned in favour of defendants No. 1 to 6/appellants and respondents No. 4 to 6 was null and void in the eyes of law and permanently restrained them from alienating the suit land. The dispute in the suit was regarding the inheritance of the estate of Chet Singh, father of the appellants, respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 and husband of respondent No. 3, who died on 16.1.1984, leaving behind RSA No. 3575 of 2010 2 all of them as his natural legal heirs and at the time of his death, he was the owner of the land in dispute, fully detailed by the plaintiffs in the heading of the plaint. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming ownership on the basis of the Will dated 16.12.1983 executed in their favour by Chet Singh, thereby disinheriting the other legal heirs. They pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 3 had started living separate from the deceased, after attaining the age of majority and defendant No. 1 was given the share out of the total property. The Will dated 16.12.1983 was executed by the deceased in sound disposing mind, vide which he revoked the previous Will dated 5.11.1982. Vide that Will he bequeathed the suit land in their favour and in favour of defendants No. 7 and 8, as it were they who had been serving him and the Will was the outcome of his love and affection towards them. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 3. They pleaded in their written statement that the Will dated 5.11.1982 was duly executed by the deceased in their favour and they are already coming in possession of the suit property on the basis thereof. That Will was never cancelled by the deceased. Defendants No. 7 and 8 had been living separately at Delhi and Ludhiana and there was no occasion for the deceased to execute Will dated 16.12.1983 in their favour and in favour of the plaintiffs. That Will has no value in the eyes of law. The mutation already stands sanctioned in their favour. Defendants No. 7 and 8 in their written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. In the replication to the written statement of defendants No. 1 to 3, the plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated the contentions made in the plaint. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed RSA No. 3575 of 2010 3 by the trial court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No. 7 and 8 are the owners of the suit land on the basis of the Will dated 16.12.1983 executed by deceased Chet Singh and the mutation sanctioned on the basis of natural succession is illegal and void ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether defendants Nos. 7 and 8 are owners in possession of the land of deceased Chet Singh being his legal heirs ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 6. Relief.” To succeed in the suit, the plaintiffs examined Surjit Singh (PW-1), Fauja Singh (PW-2) and Gurdial Singh-plaintiff himself entered the witness box as PW-3. On the other hand, Tara Singh-defendants examined himself as DW-1. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and resultantly, decreed their suit, vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.2002. Defendants No. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree but the same was dismissed, as aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal could have been entertained on the ground RSA No. 3575 of 2010 4 that substantial question of law is involved, as there are concurrent finding of facts recorded against the defendants/appellants by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court. It has been submitted by their counsel that the first appellate court failed to take into consideration the fact that the Will in question, which was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, was not a simple lis between the parties and the plaintiffs, who propounded that Will, were required to explain all those circumstances. In the absence of any explanation, it cannot be held that the Will is a genuine document. According to him, this Will is surrounded by the following suspicious circumstances:- i). In the Will the age of Chet Singh-testator has been mentioned as about 80/82 years, whereas it was deposed by Fauja Singh (PW-2) that at the time of the death of that testator he was 100 years old and the same has been done in order to show that this testator was possessing good health at the time of execution of the Will, whereas, it is reflected from the evidence of the plaintiffs themselves that he was confined to bed at that time. ii) According to Fauja Singh (PW-2) the testator was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar by Gurdial Singh- plaintiff No.1, who is the beneficiary under the Will and his presence at that time itself shows that he took active part in the execution of the Will. iii) Similarly situated legal heirs have been disinherited but no plausible reason has been given in the Will to disinherit them. There was no question of the testator RSA No. 3575 of 2010 5 compensating those legal heirs within a span of one year, as the previous Will in their favour was executed by the testator on 5.11.1982. iv) It was stated by Fauja Singh (PW-2) that the testator was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar by Gurdial Singh-plaintiff No.1 and the same fact was denied by that plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Surinder Singh Versus Nasib Singh and ors 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Civil), 5, Dhan Kaur (Smt.) Versus Parkash Singh and others 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 308, Ram Rachhpal versus Kailash Chander and others 2008 (1) PLR, 663 and Kartar Singh and another Versus Dilber Singh (dead) through legal representatives 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 253. Cognizance of all these suspicious circumstances was taken by the trial court and it came to the conclusion that those were sufficiently explained. It is to be noted that this Will is a registered document. The registration is a solemn act to be performed by the registering authority and that goes a long way to prove due execution of the Will. The statement of Gurdial Singh (PW-3) was duly read in the court and it cannot be inferred from his statement that the testator was confined to bed. Rather, it has come out that they had been looking after the testator and had even been removing his faeces, urine etc. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. September 29, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE RSA No. 3575 of 2010 6