IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1964 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.1.2010 Nitin and another. ....... Appellants through Shri R.S.Bal,Advocate. Versus Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Shri Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate. Respondent no.3 through Shri C.B.Goel,Advocate with Shri Manoj Sharma and Shri Nitin Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 28.1.2006 and 18.2.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). A suit for declaration was filed by Raj Kumar, who has since died and is represented by his legal representatives, i.e., the present R.S.A. No.1964 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... appellants. It was prayed that the entries made by defendant-respondent nos. 1 & 2 in their records in favour of defendant-respondent no.3 qua house property bearing No.B-II/104/A/2 situated in New Hamida Colony, Yamuna Nagar (for short, `the suit property') be declared as illegal, null & void, ineffective, non est, void ab initio, against law and justice, without jurisdiction and not binding on his rights. It was further prayed that respondent nos. 1 & 2 be directed to delete the name of respondent no.3 from the municipal records in respect of the suit property. Upon notice, respondent nos. 1 & 2 had appeared and filed their written statement resisting the suit. It was pleaded that the said entries were made in respect of the suit property on the basis of a registered Will dated 25.9.1989. Respondent no.3 had also filed his separate written statement claiming half share in the suit property on the basis of Will dated 25.9.1989 executed by late Shri Sham Singh, his grand-father. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the entries made by the defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of the defendant no.3 in municipal record and house tax assessment register in favour of defendant no.3 with regard to the suit property, as detailed in the heading of the plaint are illegal,null & void and result of fraud and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for R.S.A. No.1964 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... want of notice under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act?OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 6. Whether the suit is under value for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has filed a false suit just to harm and harass the answering respondents?OPD 8. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. The appeal preferred by the present appellants was also dismissed by the first appellate Court and the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed. Feeling dis-satisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. Concededly, the Will in question has been accepted by both the parties to be a valid document. The only controversy is regarding the interpretation of the terms thereof. According to the plaintiff, as per the terms of the Will, the suit property was intended for him, whereas according R.S.A. No.1964 of 2009 (O&M) -4- .... to respondent no.3, the Will clearly stipulated that the same was to devolve upon both Raj Kumar and him in equal shares. The plaintiff had claimed that he was exclusive owner in possession of the suit property and was living there for the last ten years. To support this assertion, he had made a reference to a demand notice dated 10.4.1997 issued under Section 78 of the Haryana Municipal Act,1973 regarding assessment of house tax qua the suit property for the year 1997-98 to which he had filed reply on 8.5.1997. He had also placed reliance on the bills and receipts relating to the suit property which were issued in his name. On the basis of the these bills and receipts, he claimed that respondent no.3 had nothing to do with the suit property. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 were alleged to have wrongly directed entering of the name of respondent no.3 against the column of ownership in their records vide order dated 19.7.1996. It was further claimed that before passing this order, no notice was issued to Raj Kumar. As mentioned above, there was no dispute regarding the Will and its validity & veracity was not questioned. The only question before the Courts below was regarding the interpretation of the terms of the Will. Therefore, they were required to examine as to whether the entries in the municipal record qua the suit property the deletion of which was prayed by Raj Kumar, were valid or not. The Courts below have found that the Will was a valid piece of document and it contained recitals to the effect that Raj Kumar and respondent no.3 were to inherit the suit property in equal shares. It R.S.A. No.1964 of 2009 (O&M) -5- .... was,therefore, concluded that the entries which were made in the municipal record on the basis of the Will in question, were legitimate. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. A photocopy as well as English translation of the Will have been placed on record as Annexure A-1. According to the recitals contained therein in the concluding paragraph, after setting in the details of the properties, the testator has stated that after his death, the same will devolve upon his successors. The suit property also finds mention therein. The English translation of the relevant part of the Will, which gave equal shares to Raj Kumar and respondent no.3 in the suit property reads as under:- “ ........... I have purchased that land in the name of Des Raj, my son and have given to Des Raj and besides this on my advice, Raj Kumar had given approximately a sum of Rs.80,000/- in the shape of cash and property to Des Raj. Hence, now I want to give him my residential Bada in which the houses etc. have been built which is at village Akalgarh and want to give to Raj Kumar son of mine and my grand son Sandip Kumar in equal shares the land approximately 13 and a half acres situated at Akalgarh and Mandoli in which 5 acres of land was purchased and 8 & a half acres land was ancestral and house No.443 at Yamuna Nagar along with other residential houses, sitting rooms and house situated at village Akalgarh, besides the rendition of accounts in banks and post offices. It is clarified R.S.A. No.1964 of 2009 (O&M) -6- .... that I want to give the house at Yamuna Nagar to Raj Kumar because he had spent about Rs.80,000/- thereon and had also paid Rs.16000/- which was loan against the same. If there was any other liability or loan standing against the said house, Raj Kumar shall be responsible to pay the same. Now, through this Will, I pledge that till I remain alive, the whole property owned by me shall remain in my possession and after my death, one Bara in which houses etc. have been constructed in which Des Raj is residing at Akalgarh shall be his ownership and the remaining properties, i.e., residential and agricultural, shall be owned and possessed along with the rendition of accounts of the banks and post offices in equal shares by my son Raj Kumar and grand-son Sandip Kumar........ “ A reading of the above reproduced extract of the Will does not leave any room for doubt that the suit property was to devolve upon the plaintiff and respondent no.3 in equal share. Therefore, respondent nos. 1 & 2 had not committed any error while making entries in their records against the column of ownership of the suit property. In my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while recording the findings in favour of respondent no.3. The Will has rightly been interpreted and, therefore, the consequent entries made by respondent nos. 1 & 2 are correct. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, has been shown to have arisen for consideration of this Court. R.S.A. No.1964 of 2009 (O&M) -7- .... Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also dismissed in view of the above. January 21,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge