Civil Revision No. 5352 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5352 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.03.2009. Ajmer Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Inderjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 6 and 7. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The controversy is whether the averments, made in the course of affidavit Annexure P-3 filed by Rajwant Singh PW-3 (who has been produced by the plaintiff-petitioner in rebuttal evidence), are relatable to the evidence in rebuttal of the following issue, the onus of proof whereof was upon the defendants-respondents. “6-A Whether Bakhtaur Singh had executed a valid will dated 8.1.1974 in favour of derendant No.1 ?OPD” It may be noticed, in the context, that the plea raised by the defendants-respondents was that Bakhtaur Singh had executed a valid will dated 8.1.1974 in favour of Harsant Kaur (in lieu of the services rendered by her ). She is averred to be an unmarried daughter of Bakhtaur Singh. Civil Revision No. 5352 of 2008 -2- **** The learned Trial Court declined the reception of Annexure P-3 into evidence by holding that the averments made in the course of thereof do not constitute evidence which may be relatable to the rebuttal of evidence given by the defendants-respondents under issue No. 6-A aforementioned. The contents of Annexure P-3 are reproduced hereunder:- “1. That I solemnly state that I knows the parties Hajura Singh defendant who has expired, was my father, Bakhtaur Singh s/o Kishan was resident of our village, who was having his own house in village. He was residing separately from my father. After death of Bakhtaur Singh his daughter Harsant Kaur was residing in the house of Bakhtaur Singh. My father and grand father were residing separately from defendant Harsant Kaur in their own house. 2. That I state that Harsant Kaur used to herself cultivate the land of her father and was earning her livelihood and she was not married. The defendants never rendered any service to Harsant Kaur and she was residing separately from them.” The opening line of para l and the concluding line of para 2 of the affidavit do not at all appear to be relatable to the evidence which the plaintiff-petitioner could validly adduce in rebuttal of the evidence adduced by defendants-respondents under issue No.6-A. The other averments purport to relate to the circumstances under which Bakhtaur Singh was alleged to have executed a will in favour of his unmarried daughter Harsant Kaur who was putting up with her. The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a direction that the affidavit Annexure P-3 shall be deemed to have been Civil Revision No. 5352 of 2008 -3- **** validly received in evidence as examination-in-chief of PW-3 Rajwant Singh in rebuttal of the evidence adduced by defendants-respondents under issue No.6-A. However, the opening line of para 1 and concluding line of para 2 of Annexure P-3 shall not be receivable in rebuttal evidence. Disposed of accordingly. March 19, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge