RSA No.1264 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1264 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2011. Jagjit Singh and others ……Appellants Versus Charanjit Kaur …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellants. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.3531-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.3532-C of 2011 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 79 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.3533-C of 2011 RSA No.1264 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main appeal. Plaintiff-Jagjit Singh etc. having failed in both the Courts below are in second appeal. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are sons and plaintiff Nos.3 to 5 and defendant-respondent-Charanjit Kaur are daughters of Jaswant Kaur since deceased. Jangir Singh is father of the parties. The dispute relates to estate of Jaswant Kaur. The plaintiffs alleged that they being natural heirs of Jaswant Kaur have 5/6th share in the suit property, defendant-respondent having the remaining 1/6th share. The plaintiffs alleged that Will dated 18.05.2002 set up by the defendant is result of fraud and connivance etc. The said Will has been challenged in the suit. The Will was alleged to be forged and fabricated. Defendant while admitting the relationship between the parties broadly denied the other plaint allegations. It was pleaded that suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with Jangir Singh (husband of Jaswant Kaur). It was alleged that Jaswant Kaur used to live with defendant because the plaintiffs (sons and daughters of Jaswant Kaur) and Jangir Singh (husband of Jaswant Kaur) had strained relations with her. Jaswant Kaur had even lodged FIR RSA No.1264 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - No.70 dated 17.11.1995 against Jangir Singh and plaintiff No.2. Jangir Singh had tried to grab the property of Jaswant Kaur many times. She had filed many complaints against Jangir Singh and against the plaintiffs with the police. Suit filed by Jaswant Kaur against her husband Jangir Singh was decreed vide decree dated 08.01.2005 for recovery of Rs.1,31,250/- with interest. Jaswant Kaur executed Will dated 18.05.2002 in favour of the defendant and accordingly defendant alone has inherited the suit property from Jaswant Kaur. Jaswant Kaur had even affirmed affidavits dated 11.03.2002 and 31.05.2002 affirming that her husband and the plaintiffs were not looking after her and only the defendant was looking after her. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Fate of the case depends on the impugned Will dated 18.05.2002. To prove the same, defendant has examined Rajinder Singh attesting witness of the Will. He has supported the defendant’s case. He is Lambardar of the Village where defendant is RSA No.1264 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - married. The defendant herself stepped into the witness box and supported her own case. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there was strong ground for executing the impugned Will by Jaswant Kaur in favour of defendant. It has come in evidence that all the plaintiffs are residing with their father Jangir Singh whereas defendant was residing with her mother Jaswant Kaur. It is also undisputed that Jaswant Kaur had strained relationship with her husband Jangir Singh. Consequently, it was very natural for Jaswant Kaur to have executed the impugned Will in favour of defendant, who alone was supporting her whereas the plaintiffs were supporting Jangir Singh, who had strained relation with Jaswant Kaur. Jaswant Kaur had even filed suit for recovery of money against her husband which was also decreed. Defendant was represented Jaswant Kaur in that suit as her attorney. Jaswant Kaur had also lodged FIR not only against her husband Jangir Singh, but also against plaintiff No.2 regarding some sale deeds executed on behalf of Jaswant Kaur regarding her land. Jangir Singh is admittedly residing with the plaintiffs. It is thus apparent that Jaswant Kaur was not residing with the plaintiffs because she was having strained relation with Jangir Singh and had also lodged FIR even against plaintiff No.2, besides Jangir Singh. It is thus manifest that Jaswant Kaur was residing with the defendant. Even in the suit filed by Jaswant Kaur against Jangir Singh, her address was of village Sheron where the defendant is residing, again depicting that Jaswant Kaur was residing with the defendant. There was thus sufficient ground for disinheriting the RSA No.1264 of 2011 (O & M) - 5 - plaintiffs because they were residing with their father Jangir Singh with whom Jaswant Kaur was having strained relations. There was civil and criminal litigation between Jaswant Kaur and her husband. Same reasons have been mentioned in the impugned Will. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that execution of the impugned Will has been duly proved by the defendant. Concurrent finding to this effect recorded by the Courts below is justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding does not warrant interference in second appellate jurisdiction because the said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16.03.2011 A.kaundal