RSA No.1540 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1540 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.07.2009 Harbhajan Singh Bindra ...Appellant VERSUS Anup Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. G. S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for declaration that they are owners in possession and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating any part of the house, for making any alteration and for mandatory injunction directing him to withdraw from that portion of the house which was in his possession. Following questions have been proposed by the learned counsel:- “a) Whether Vidya Kaur mother of the parties and wife of testator Sujan Singh Bindra had a pre-existing right of maintenance vis-a-vis her husband and thereafter qua his estate and after his death by virtue of provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, became a RSA No.1540 of 2008 -2- absolute owner, even though in the Will dated 21.04.1975 it was cited that she would hold the property during her lifetime? b) Whether once having possessed the property by virtue of the said will, Vidya Kaur could further will the property by registered Will in favour of her daughter-in- law and grand children and sell part of the same to her son? c) Whether the ld. Courts below failed to analyse and appreciate the above position of law as reported in AIR 1977 SC 1944 “V. Tulsama Vs. Sesha Reddi and followed in AIR 1999 SC 1147 “Smt. Ben Bai Vs. Raghubir Parshad? d) Whether the registered Will and the sale deeds could be discarded on the sole basis of Ex.RB – Video Compact Disc which was never proved as per the provisions of Section 65-A and 65-B which relate to admissibility of electronic records having been shot by the plaintiffs themselves and never maintained in the ordinary course of activity and never proved in accordance with law?” These questions in fact depend upon the answer to the question of the validity of the will and the sale deed; that is to say, these questions need to be answered only if it is held that the will and the sale deed in favour of the appellant have been proved. Both the Courts below have returned the finding that both the will and sale deed are suspicious RSA No.1540 of 2008 -3- circumstances and have discarded the same. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the findings and the evidence but has not been able to persuade me that the same are either based on no evidence or based on such misreading of the evidence so as to render the same perverse. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 29, 2009 JUDGE ashish