R.S.A. No. 776 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 776 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.11.2008 Smt. Shanti (deceased) through LR ..Appellant v. Mahipal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court against concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by her for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the suit land and the will dated 7.4.1975, executed by Gopal in favour of the Jai Dayal (deceased) and mutations No. 1650 dated 2.5.1978 and 213 dated 2.5.1978 entered into in the name of Jai Dayal on the basis of the will, are null and void and not binding on her. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the appellant in the present case, who is now represented through her legal representative, was the only daughter of Gopal and on his death in the year 1978, she had inherited his entire property and Jai Dayal, who is now represented through his legal representatives, who was son of a cousin of the father of the appellant, did not have any right, title or interest in the property and will dated 7.4.1975 propounded by him for the purpose of getting the mutations of his property sanctioned in his favour was totally forged and fictitious document. Accordingly, the mutations entered on the basis thereof deserve to be set aside as the learned court below has not properly appreciated the claim of the appellant- plaintiff. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Admittedly, Gopal father of deceased-Shanti (appellant-plaintiff) died in the year 1978. It is not disputed that Shanti was aware of his death and also the property owned by him. Still, no steps were taken by her till 29.11.1995 when the present suit was filed for getting the property of Gopal transferred in her name. The mutations on the basis of will dated 7.4.1975 were R.S.A. No. 776 of 2008 [ 2] registered in favour of Jai Dayal on 2.5.1978 and thereafter, he was enjoying the fruits of the property. The oral statement of the appellant to the effect that she had been visiting the village and getting the batai from the respondents-defendants cannot be relied upon as such, as if she had been visiting the village for getting the batai for the land, she would have certainly made efforts to get the ownerhip of the land transferred in her name, but nothing on that account is on record. Both the learned courts below, while dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff on account of its being barred by limitation, had also upheld the will dated 7.4.1975 which was a registered document. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 4.11.2008 mk