RSA No.2413 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2413 of 2010 Date of decision : 28-09-2010 Salwinder Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Gurmej Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2 / Caveator. L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) CM No.7206-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2413 of 2010 Salwinder Singh plaintiff is in second appeal after having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Bachan Singh was owner in possession of 42 Kanals 7 Marlas land being 1/4th share of 171 Kanals 8 Marlas land, defendant Nos.4 to 6 being co-sharers of the remaining 3/4th share therein. The plaintiff on the basis of Will dated 01.01.1997 allegedly executed by Bachan Singh in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.2 claimed half share in the land of Bachan Singh i.e. 1/8th share in 171 Kanals 8 Marlas land. It may be mentioned that plaintiff and defendant No.2 RSA No.2413 of 2010 -2- are sons of Bachan Singh, defendant No.1 is daughter of Bachan Singh whereas defendant No.3 is widow of Bachan Singh. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that Bachan Singh had executed a registered Will dated 17.04.1989 on the basis of which inheritance mutation of Bachan Singh has been sanctioned. According to said Will, defendant Nos.1 got 12 Kanals land whereas plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 got the remaining land in equal shares i.e. a little over 10 Kanals each. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff stands dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant while fairly conceding that Will dated 01.01.1997 set up by the plaintiff has not been proved, contended that Will dated 17.04.1989 set up by the contesting defendants has also not been proved as no attesting witness of the said Will has been examined. I have carefully considered this contention but find no merit there. The instant second appeal is fruitless litigation. Will dated 01.01.1997 set up by the plaintiff has not been proved. Consequently, even if Will dated 17.04.1989 set up by the contesting RSA No.2413 of 2010 -3- defendants is ignored, it would not make any difference to the share of the plaintiff in the land of his father Bachan Singh. Out of 42 Kanals 7 Marlas land, the plaintiff by way of natural inheritance, would get 1/4th share thereof i.e. 10 Kanals and odd Marlas as there are four natural heirs of Bachan Singh i.e. two sons, a daughter and widow. Under the Will dated 17.04.1989 set up by the contesting defendants also, the plaintiff has got 10 Kanals and odd Marlas land in the land of Bachan Singh. Consequently, the share of plaintiff in the land of Bachan Singh is not materially affected irrespective of whether Will dated 17.04.1989 set up by the contesting defendants is taken into consideration or the same is ignored. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is dismissed. (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE 28-09-2010 manju