C.R. No.4479 of 2009 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4479 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.09.2010 Suraj Bhan .……Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. R. Rana, Advocate for respondent Nos.13 to 17. Remaining respondent ex parte. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Suraj Bhan has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 18.12.2006 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal and judgment dated 09.05.2009 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Devi Ram filed suit against respondents seeking declaration that he has become owner in possession of the suit land under Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 having acquired occupancy tenancy rights under Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. During pendency of the suit which was instituted on 10.09.1997, Devi Ram plaintiff died on 24.07.2003. Suraj Bhan petitioner herein moved application for being impleaded as legal representative of Devi Ram C.R. No.4479 of 2009 (O & M) 2 plaintiff on the basis of Will dated 27.01.2003 allegedly executed by Devi Ram in his favour. Defendants/respondents contested the aforesaid application. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide impugned order dated 18.12.2006 Annexure P-1 dismissed the application moved by Suraj Bhan petitioner herein and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by Devi Ram plaintiff as having abated. Appeal preferred by Suraj Bhan against order Annexure P-1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide impugned judgment dated 09.05.2009 Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, Suraj Bhan has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Devi Ram had become owner of the suit land and in view of his Will, petitioner inherited the suit land from Devi Ram and, therefore, petitioner has right to prosecute the suit instituted by Devi Ram being his legal representative. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in view of Section 8 of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953, tenancy continues on the death of the tenant, but not when the tenant leaves no male descendant or mother or widow. In the instant case, petitioner is brother's son of Devi Ram plaintiff and, therefore, the tenancy could not be inherited by the petitioner nor the tenancy could be bequeathed by Devi Ram plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the Will set up by the petitioner has not been proved as original will has not seen the C.R. No.4479 of 2009 (O & M) 3 light of the day and there are also other discrepancies in the evidence of the petitioner regarding the alleged Will. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Original Will allegedly executed by Devi Ram in favour of the petitioner has not seen the light of the day. It appears that after the death of Devi Ram , the Will was presented for registration, but the Sub-Registrar vide order dated 10.06.2004 refused to register the Will. Photostat or certified copy of the unregistered Will could not be admitted in evidence particularly because no permission for leading secondary evidence of the Will was obtained. Even otherwise, there are many discrepancies in the evidence of the petitioner regarding the Will which have been noticed in detail by the lower appellate Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I affirm the finding of the lower appellate Court that petitioner has failed to prove the alleged Will. Consequently, the petitioner has no locus standi to continue the suit instituted by Devi Ram plaintiff nor the petitioner can be impleaded as legal representative of Devi Ram plaintiff since deceased. In view of this conclusion, I am not going into the other arguments raised on behalf of the counsel for the parties. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is dismissed. However, I have not expressed any opinion regarding right of natural heirs of Devi Ram to get themselves impleaded as legal representatives of Devi Ram plaintiff by moving application for setting aside the abatement of the suit. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 30.09.2010. A. Kaundal