RSA No.1009 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1009 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19 - 7 - 2011 Prem Singh ....Appellant v. Brij Mohan @ Brij Manmohan and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.M.K.Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 to 6. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff having failed in two rounds of litigation has instituted the present Regular Second Appeal. The dispute revolves around the estate of Champa Devi, between brothers of Champa Devi i.e. appellant-plaintiff and her son and daughter, defendant-respondents No.1 and 2. Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 6 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in Village Jhuriwala which was owned by his sister Smt.Champa Devi and also situated at Village Banna Madanpur. The detail and description of the property in these two villages has been given in head note of the plaint. In RSA No.1009 of 2010 [2] the plaint, it was stated that the appellant-plaintiff Prem Singh along with his sister Champa Devi (since deceased) being brother and sister inherited the property from their father Mohinder Singh. It is stated that the appellant-plaintiff and his sister had inherited the land at Villages Jhuriwala, Banna Madanpur and Khatauli. It was further pleaded in the suit that Champa Devi had executed a legal, valid and registered will in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. The Will was executed on 21.9.1999. It was stated in the plaint that on the basis of registered Will dated 21.9.1999, the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the property of Champa Devi situated at Villages Jhuriwala, Banna Madanpur and Khatauli. However, in the prayer clause it was stated that decree for declaration that the appellant- plaintiff is owner in possession of land situated at Villages Jhuriwala and Banna Madanpur be granted. Defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit, upon service, filed a joint written statement. They denied the Will propounded by the appellant- plaintiff and further stated that they being natural successors are entitled to the estate of Champa Devi. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No.3 to 6. Defendants No.3 to 4 are sons of defendant No.1, whereas defendant Nos.5 and 6 are sons of defendant No.2. They challenged the Will dated 21.9.1999 executed by Champa Devi in favour of the appellant- plaintiff. However, they stated that their grandmother executed a will on 31.10.1998 and had bequeathed the property to them in Villages Ramgarh and Kishangarh. After completion of the pleadings, the trial Court had formulated the following issues:- RSA No.1009 of 2010 [3] 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the order dated 4-12-2001 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panchkula and or4der dated 20-9-2002 passed by the Collector, Panchkula are illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of possession of the land? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. Issue No.1 was decided against the appellant-plaintiff and in favour of the respondent-defendants. The trial Court had given two findings with regard to issue No.1 that the suit had been instituted qua the land situated at Villages Khatauli, Jhuriwala and Banna Madanpur, whereas vide Will Ex.PW-2/A executed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, he has only been given the land situated at Village Khatauli. The following findings of the trial Court are required to be reproduced:- “17. Further from the evidence of the plaintiff, this fact also becomes evident that Smt.Champa Devi did not give any details of the property alleged to have been bequeathed by her. She simply made mention that she was the resident of village Khatauli and she had got the property in that village (Khatauli), which she got from her father. This fact as finds mention in the Will clearly shows that she did not bequeath her property of villages Banna Madanpur, village Jhuriwala and of Kishangarh as claimed by the plaintiff in this suit on the basis of the Will as well as so stated by the witnesses so examined by the plaintiff, thereby arousing the suspicion on the claim of the RSA No.1009 of 2010 [4] plaintiff.” Secondly, the trial Court held that Will Ex.PW2/A propounded by the appellant-plaintiff does not appear to be a genuine document. This finding has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. I have seen photo copy of the Will Ex.PW2/A produced by counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. In this Will, it is stated by Champa Devi that she is a resident of Village Khatauli, Tehsil and District Panchkula. The Will further states that the land of which she was owner in the above- said village, has been received by her from her father and this land, after her death, will go to her brother. Therefore, on the basis of Will Ex.PW2/A, the appellant-plaintiff could not lay any claim on the land situated in Village Jhuriwala and Banna Madanpur. Furthermore, the trial Court after considering the evidence of Sadhu Ram Lamba and attending circumstances has held that Will Ex.PW2/A cannot be said to be a genuine document. Issues No.3 and 4 were also decided against the appellant-plaintiff. Issues No.5 and 6 were decided against the respondent-defendants and thereafter the trial Court had granted no relief to the appellant-plaintiff and had dismissed the suit. Mr.Vivek Suri, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has failed to advance any meaningful argument from which it can be inferred that Will Ex.PW2/A pertains to the suit land situated at Village Jhuriwala and Banna Madanpur. The Will Ex.PW2/A has been read over again and again by counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and the respondent-defendants. There is no doubt that Will Ex.PW2/A only pertains to the land situated at Village Khatauli. Therefore, on the basis of Will Ex.PW2/A, it has been rightly held by both the Courts below that the appellant-plaintiff is not RSA No.1009 of 2010 [5] entitled to succeed to the land at Villages Jhuriwala and Banna Madanpur. Thus, counsel for the appellant-plaintiff could not formulate any point of law, much less the substantial, which warrants attention of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 19, 2011. JUDGE RC