R.S.A.No.3676 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3676 of 2007 Date of Decision : 19.8.2009 Nirmal Kaur and Others ...Appellants Versus Mohinder Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr. D.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration filed by the appellants claiming the estate of Gian Kaur on the basis of Will dated 1.10.2001 was dismissed, in appeal. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of Kuldip Singh, pre-deceased son of Gian Kaur, whereas plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the minor daughter and son respectively of the aforesaid pre-deceased son. Defendant No.1 is the husband of Gian Kaur. Defendant No.3 is the wife of Ranjit Singh, another pre-deceased son of Gian Kaur, and defendant No.4 is the daughter of the said Ranjit Singh. Defendant No.2 is Gian Kaur herself. Initially the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession. However, after the death of Gian Kaur on R.S.A.No.3676 of 2007 2 17.10.2001, the plaintiffs propounded Will dated 1.10.2001 and claimed declaration of title on the basis of the said Will. Though the learned trial Court decreed the suit, but the learned first Appellate Court found that the aforesaid Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and consequently dismissed the suit in appeal. The first Appellate court has taken into consideration the fact that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs during the life-time of Gian Kaur, in which Gian Kaur has filed a written statement on 16.8.2001 pointing out that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration sought for. It has been also noticed that appellant No.1 has filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against Mohinder Singh, Gian Kaur and Harinder kaur in January 2001, in which a summoning order was passed on 8.10.2001. In view of the said facts, a finding was returned that since the parties were litigating against Gian Kaur, possibly she could not execute Will in favour of plaintiff No.3 Jashandeep Singh. In fact recital in the Will itself shows the untruthfulness of the stand of the appellants. It has been recited in the Will that the wife of Kuldip Singh and Jashandeep Singh were living with her and they do not have any other place to live. They are obedient and take care of her by all means and she is happy with them. The said fact is stand belied by the conduct of appellant No.1 in not filing a civil suit for declaration, but also a criminal complaint in which Gian kaur is one of the accused. The learned first Appellate Court has examined the entire evidence to return a finding of fact that the Will dated 1.10.2001 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In view of the above, I do not find that the findings of fact recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are suffering from any R.S.A.No.3676 of 2007 3 patent illegality or irregularity. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 19.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE