Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2011 Date of decision. 27.09.2011 Lachhman Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Gulwant Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Defendants Lachhman Singh and others are before me in this revision petition, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda and the order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda . Gulwant Kaur, widow of Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh had brought a suit for declaration against the petitioners to the effect that she is owner in possession of land measuring 84 kanals 4 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Jeeda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. She had questioned the registered will dated 20.10.2010 alleged to have been executed by her deceased husband, to be illegal, null and void and not binding on her rights as sole legal heir of her deceased husband. She had also questioned the mutation entered on the basis of Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2011 --2-- the said will and has sought other reliefs which are not necessary to be mentioned here. In the said suit, Gulwant Kaur, plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession over the suit land and alienating any portion thereof till decision of the suit. She had questioned the will by stating that Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh was ill and had been lying hospitalized and on 20.10.2010 his condition had deteriorated and he became unconscious and, therefore, was not in a position to execute the Will. She has, therefore, claimed the alleged Will to be illegal. On the other hand, the defendants relied on this Will and have claimed the Will to be validly executed by Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh on account of their relationship with the deceased as also for their rendering services to him. Learned trial court took into account the fact that Gulwant Kaur is the sole legal heir of the deceased and the Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and, therefore, the plaintiff had a prima-facie case in her favour. It was also found by the trial court that she would suffer irreparable loss in case the injunction order was not made in her favour and that the balance of convenience was also there in her favour. Hence, the trial court passed the injunction order on 14.6.2011. Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the order dated 14.06.2011, the defendants preferred an appeal which was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, who had dismissed the same, vide judgment dated 23.07.2011. It is these two orders, which are challenged by the defendants by way of this revision petition. I have heard Shri Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh had been the cousin brother of the father of the petitioners. According to him, they are descendants of Rattan Singh, their common ancestor. He has further submitted that Rattan Singh had three sons named Ishar Singh, Sher Singh and Baghel Singh. Baghel Singh is said to have died unmarried and issueless about 20 years back. He has submitted that while Ishar Singh had only one son named Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh, Sher Singh had two sons named Labh Singh and Surjit Singh, and the petitioners are the sons of said Labh Singh and Surjit Singh. He has submitted that the petitioners had been serving Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh and taking into account their services and his close relationship with them, Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh had executed a Will in their favour on 20.10.2010. He has submitted that the Will is a registered document and it cannot be rejected in the manner done by the courts below. He has submitted that the Will is always there to change the course of succession. According to him, the Will was not necessary if Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh wanted his property to go to Gulwant Kaur, his Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2011 --4-- wife. He has submitted that the Will is attested by numberdar and there was no suspicious circumstance attached to its execution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in case both the parties claim possession over the disputed property, the course open to the courts below was to order status quo regarding possession over the suit property. He has submitted that he is ready to make a statement at bar that the petitioners would not alienate the suit property till decision of the suit. According to him, if the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff, she would get the property back. He has further submitted that the mutation has already been sanctioned on the basis of the Will in favour of the petitioners. He has cited before me three decisions in support of his submissions reported as Amar Kaur v. Paramjit Kaur, 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 213, Jawahar Lal and others v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar, 1988(2) Revenue Law Reporter, 456 and Jagdish Singh Walia and another v. Khalsa Higher Secondary School, Batala, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases, 202. Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh was hospitalized on the date of execution of the Will i.e. 20.10.2010. He died soon thereafter on 21.10.2010. The contents of the Will noticed by learned trial court are to the effect that the testator wanted to avoid any disputes amongst his heirs regarding his property. By depriving his aged wife from the property held by him and giving the entire property to his cousin brother's son, he has not resolved any dispute that was to arise after his death about his property. There is nothing in the Will to show as to why he deprived his wife, his only natural heir of the property or a share therein. Civil Revision No. 5952 of 2011 --5-- Mere registration of a will would not prove that the will is free from suspicious circumstances and deserves to be acted upon. The parties are yet to lead their evidence and it is after the evidence is led, the question of genuineness of the will would be decided. As is laid down in Amar Kaur's case (supra) registration of a will goes a long way to prove its authenticity. However, the circumstances of Gurcharan Singh @ Jhanda Singh being critically hospitalized and dying a day after execution and registration of the Will and the testator not going to the office of Registrar but the Registrar coming to the hospital to register the will, would show that the ratio of Amar Kaur's case (supra) would not apply to the facts of this case. It is a case where the defendants claim themselves to be in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff also claims herself to be in possession of the suit property. However, for the mere fact that both the parties claim possession over the suit property, status quo order was not to be made. Learned courts below prima facie found the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property, and, therefore, passed the impugned orders. The same cannot be held unjustified for any reason. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is found to have no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 27.09.2011 dinesh