IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3922 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.1.2010 Smt.Imrati. ....... Appellant. Versus Smt.Moharli and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 20.9.2007 and 3.3.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent no.1 was decreed and the appeal of the defendant-appellant, Smt.Imrati, and defendant-proforma respondent no.2, Raghbir, was dismissed. Respondent no.1 had filed a suit for declaration against the R.S.A.No.3922 of 2009 -2- .... appellant and proforma respondent no.2 pleading therein that she had inherited the estate of Ganga Sahai after his death on 26.4.2003 being his widow; that in this way, she became owner in possession of the suit land and mutation dated 20.6.2003 was sanctioned in that regard; that the appellant and proforma respondent had an evil eye on the property in dispute and they wanted to grab the same and in order to fulfill their bad intention, they procured a forged Will dated 16.10.1991 and got sanctioned the same in favour of Shish Ram son of Raghbir; that mutation no.2770 sanctioned in favour of Shish Ram was illegal and was liable to be set aside being not binding on her rights; that Ganga Sahai never executed any Will in favour of Shish Ram and that the suit land was ancestral property; and that Shish Ram had died in the year 1992-93, whereas Ganga Sahai expired in the year 2003 and he had not disclosed anything about the alleged Will in favour of Shish Ram. The suit was resisted by the appellant and proforma respondent, who had pleaded that it was misconceived and there was a validly executed Will dated 16.10.1991 in favour of Shish Ram and on the basis of which, mutation no.2770 was rightly entered. It was pleaded that the Will was voluntarily executed by Ganga Sahai on account of his love and affection for Shish Ram. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether impugned Will dated 16.10.1991 is wrong, illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned in the plaint and plaintiff has succeeded the R.S.A.No.3922 of 2009 -3- .... property left behind by Ganga Sahai?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether she is entitled the relief as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether Shish Ram was son of Respondent?OPD 4. Whether Mutation No.2770 effected and sanctioned by revenue authority in favour of Shish Ram son of Respondent is liable to be set aside and not binding on plaintiff?OPP 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 6. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the Will in question was a forged document and accordingly decreed the suit of respondent no.1. On appeal by the appellant and proforma respondent, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Feeling dis-satisfied, the appellant has filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and are contrary to the record and are liable to be set aside. I have thoughtfully considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention is totally misplaced. The appellant had pleaded the execution of Will dated 16.10.1991 supposedly by the testator-Ganga Sahai in favour of Shish Ram. The Courts R.S.A.No.3922 of 2009 -4- .... below have rightly appreciated that the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances because there was no occasion for Ganga Sahai to exclude the natural heirs from inheritance. Moreover, the scribe of the Will was not examined and one of the alleged attesting witnesses, namely, Khayali Ram, appeared as PW1 and stated that Ganga Sahai never signed or thumb marked on the alleged Will in his presence, whereas the other attesting witness, namely, Rajinder stepped into witness box as DW3, also stated that the Will was never signed by Ganga Sahai in his presence. Even the original Will was not produced on the record. Besides, Ganga Sahai is said to have died on 26.4.2003, whereas the Will is alleged to have been executed on 16.10.1991 in favour of Shish Ram, who pre-deceased the testator in the year 1993. In addition, it is also not borne out from the record that what was the reason for Ganga Sahai to totally exclude respondent no.1, who was his natural heir, from inheritance. All these factors when taken together cumulatively show that the Will was nothing but a document born to fraud and manipulation. On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that no substantial question arises for consideration of this Court and the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. January 21,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge