IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1131 of 2008. Date of Decision: 27th January, 2009. M/s Prince Industrial Corporation & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. A.K.Garg, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioners seek a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 for execution of a Conveyance Deed in their favour regarding Plot Nos. 7 and 8-C, Industrial Estate, Malerkotla. The admitted facts are that the afore-mentioned two plots were allotted in favour of petitioner No. 1 – a partnership firm. One of its partner, namely, Kanwal Kumar Uppal has unfortunately expired, leaving behind petitioner No. 2 [son], petitioner No. 3 [widow] and respondents No. 4 to 6 [daughters]. It appears that the deceased had also executed a Will in favour of his son, namely, petitioner No. 2 on 22.1.1992 [Annexure P-5]. Since petitioner No. 2 has stepped into the shoes of his father, in terms of the said Will, he applied to the Authorities for execution of the Conveyance Deed in respect of the aforesaid two plots in favour of the Firm – petitioner No. 1. His request has not been acceded to on the plea that the Will relied upon by him is full of discrepancies. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed their counter-affidavit reiterating their doubts regarding genuineness of the Will. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this petition must succeed. Ignoring the Will in question and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, all the legal heirs of the deceased – Kanwal Kumar Uppal are present before this Court, namely, Petitioners No. 2 and 3 and respondents No. 4 to 6. Learned counsel for respondents no. 4 to 6, namely, daughters of the deceased, states at the bar that they have no objection in case the Conveyance Deed is executed in favour of the Firm. Similar prayer has been made by petitioners No. 2 and 3 also. In this view of the matter, there is no dispute amongst the legal heirs of the deceased regarding inheritance and/or the two plots in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents No. 4 to 6 also state at the Bar that except them, there is no other legal heir of the deceased. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 firm within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them. No costs. January 27, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE