IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4244 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 15th July, 2011 Sukhwinder Kaur and others … Petitioners Versus Bakshish Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The respondents-plaintiffs had instituted a suit for joint possession of the land, houses and plots; the details and description whereof was given in the head-note of the plaint as A to W. They had taken a specific stand that being the only heirs of late Mohinder Singh they are joint owners of the property mentioned in the head-note of the plaint. To controvert this, the petitioners-defendants took a categoric stand that they have become owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deeds dated 8th November, 1999; 30th November, 1999; 17th December, 1999; 24th January, 2000 and 24th January, 2000. The petitioners-defendants also controverted the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs by stating that Mohinder Singh had executed a legal and valid Will dated 3rd June, 1999 in favour of the petitioners- defendants and plaintiff No.1. An application (Annexure P-3) was filed before the trial Court praying that additional issues be framed to determine as to Civil Revision No.4244 of 2011 (O&M) whether the sale deeds and the legal/valid Will were executed by Mohinder Singh or not. A reply (Annexure P-4) was filed to the application and following objections were raised: (a) That the suit is pending since 2001 and after ten years the application (Annexure P-3) has been filed to delay the culmination of the suit; (b) That in a simple suit for joint possession, the plaintiffs in order to avoid payment of Court fee, are seeking relief of cancellation of sale deeds and the Will. The trial Court held that the valuable rights of the parties could not be defeated simply because it will cause delay. The Court further held that once a specific plea has been raised by the defendants the Court was bound to frame the specific issues. The trial Court further held that since regarding the execution of sale deeds and the Will, the parties are at variance, therefore, the additional issues ought to be framed. The trial Court allowed the application (Annexure P-3) and had framed following issues: “4-A. Whether late Mohinder Singh had executed sale deeds dated 8.11.1999, 30.11.1999, 17.12.1999, 8.12.1999, 24.1.2000 and 24.1.2000 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendants. If so its effect? OPD 4-B. Whether late Mohinder Singh had executed a legal and valid will dated 3.6.1999 in favour of the defendants and plaintiff No.1. If so, to what effect? OPD” Mr.Gurnam Singh Nagra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-defendants, has stated that by framing additional issues 2 Civil Revision No.4244 of 2011 (O&M) the suit which is pending for the last ten years will be unnecessarily prolonged. The suit has been preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs. It is the grant of relief to them which will be delayed. Since, the petitioners- defendants had raised a specific plea that respondents-plaintiffs are not entitled to joint possession because there are sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners-defendants and they are also entitled to the estate of Mohinder Singh because of the Will dated 3rd June, 1999, therefore, these issues are required to be determined by the Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 15, 2011 rps 3