IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2141 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 04, 2009 Angrez Kaur ....Appellant Versus Labh Kaur .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the appellant for joint possession as owner of the suit land against her sister Labh Kaur-respondent, was dismissed with costs by the trial Court, which judgment and decree was upheld by the first appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 C.P.C. The dispute between the parties, who are real sisters, pertains to the landed property left by their father Jit Singh, which fell to the share of Smt. Rattan Kaur, mother of the parties. After the death of Jit Singh, the parties and their mother Rattan Kaur inherited the suit land in equal shares. About two years before the filing of the suit, Rattan R.S.A. No. 2141 of 2009 -2- Kaur also died. According to the plaintiff, the defendant staked claim to the entire suit land on the basis of the Will dated 3.5.2000 said to have been executed by Rattan Kaur but the Will in question was a false and fabricated document whereas her mother had died intestate. The plaintiff also challenged mutations No. 289 of village Salaura and 424 of village Sangatpura regarding the inheritance of her mother Rattan Kaur. The defendant justified the execution of Will as she used to serve her mother, who, out of love and affection and on account of the services rendered by the defendant, executed a registered Will in her favour. On the other hand, Gurmail Singh, husband of the plaintiff used to quarrel and beat her. Even the plaintiff used to give beatings to Rattan Kaur and wanted to grab the landed property of Rattan Kaur. Security proceedings were initiated at the instance of Rattan Kaur. She debarred the plaintiff from inheriting her property. Rattan Kaur alongwith the defendant also filed a suit for separating their possession/share in the house in the abadi of the village. The said suit was decreed and the application for final decree was pending when Rattan Kaur died. After her death, the defendant moved an application on the basis of the Will in question to be impleaded as her legal representative. The mutation regarding inheritance of Smt.Rattan Kaur was sanctioned on the basis of the Will in favour of the defendant. R.S.A. No. 2141 of 2009 -3- Both the Courts below held that the defendant had been able to prove the due execution of the Will dated 3.5.2000. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of joint possession. The suit was dismissed with costs. However, it was held that the dismissal of the suit would not affect the rights of the plaintiff qua the properties inherited by her from her father Jit Singh. According to the appellant, her mother Rattan Kaur died intestate whereas according to the respondent, said Rattan Kaur scribed the Will dated 3.5.2000 in her favour. The scribe of the Will appeared as DW3 whereas Mewa Singh and Ajit Singh, who had attested the Will appeared as DW1 and DW4 respectively. Even Pritpal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Morinda, who had registered the Will stepped into the witness box as DW7. In the Will Ex.D1, the testator had given sufficient reasons as to why the appellant was excluded from inheritance. It was mentioned therein that the testator was residing with her daughter Labh Kaur and was being served by her. Her daughter Angrez Kaur was residing in her own house although she used to visit the house of the testator sometimes. Said Angrez Kaur had been quarreling and misbehaving with the testator. Even Angrez Kaur had filed cases against the testator in various Courts. On the basis of the above evidence, learned Courts below rightly held that the Will Ex.D1 was a genuine document and, R.S.A. No. 2141 of 2009 -4- therefor, respondent-Labh Kaur was entitled to succeed to the estate of her mother Rattan Kaur. The suit property was earlier recorded in the revenue records to be in the name of Jit Singh, father of the parties. After the death of Jit Singh, the same was mutated in the name of the parties as well as their mother Smt. Rattan Kaur. Since Smt. Rattan Kaur was exclusive owner of her share after the death of her husband, the appellant could not be heard saying that the suit property was ancestral in nature. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the material evidence available on the file. These findings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They cannot be said to be perverse and, therefore, not liable to be upset and, that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various questions of law formulated by learned counsel for the appellant do not arise for determination. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 04, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1