RSA No.5046 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5046 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2010 Malkiat Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Boor Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: - Mr. Ashok Aneja, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** GURDEV SINGH, J. CM No.14801-C of 2009 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 133 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. CM No.14803-C of 2009 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. CM No.14802-C of 2009 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Registry of the Court to do the needful. CM No.14804-C of 2009 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.5046 of 2009 (O&M) -2- RSA No.5046 of 2009 Heard. This regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2008 vide which the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, dismissing their suit for possession of the land in dispute measuring 18 kanals 14 marlas being 1/4th share of the land measuring 74 kanals 16 marlas, situated in village Dholewala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, was dismissed. Plaintiffs claimed themselves to be land owners forming part of the estate of Kala Singh deceased on the ground that they were his natural legal heirs along with defendants No.1 to 6 being his widow, daughters and son. They challenged the 'Will' dated 1.2.1985 alleged to have been executed by deceased in favour of defendants No.1, on the basis of which mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. Case pleaded in the plaint is that the deceased was an old man and was not of sound deposing mind at the time of execution of the said 'Will'. He was under the influence of Dano defendant No.6, who prevailed upon him to execute the 'Will' in favour of his son, Boor Singh, defendant No.1. The same being the result of pressure and undue influence is bound to be ignored. No reason has been given therein for dis-inheriting them and the other legal heirs. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, he pleaded that the 'Will' was executed by Kala Singh without any such pressure or influence. He also took up preliminary objection that the suit was barred RSA No.5046 of 2009 (O&M) -3- by principles of res judicata and was bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and was not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, including the following issue: - “Whether Kala Singh deceased executed a Will dated 1.2.1985 in favour of defendant No.1? OPD After going through the evidence produced by the parties and hearing counsel on their behalf, the said issue was decided against the plaintiffs and accordingly their suit was dismissed. They preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, but the findings were affirmed by the first appellate court and the appeal was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants. It has been submitted by the counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants that the 'Will' is a suspicious document, as other legal heirs were dis-inherited by the testator. That circumstance itself is sufficient for concluding that this 'Will' is not a genuine document and that the findings recorded to the contrary by the lower courts cannot be sustained and as such substantial question of law arises, “whether the 'Will' is a genuine document or not”? The very purpose of the 'Will' is to dis-inherit the natural legal heirs. That circumstance alone cannot be held to be such a suspicious circumstance so as to conclude that 'Will' is not a genuine document. After going through the evidence produced by the parties concurrent findings were recorded by the lower courts. It cannot be said that there is any such mis-reading of the evidence or that findings so recorded are RSA No.5046 of 2009 (O&M) -4- perverse. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. (Gurdev Singh) Judge October 29, 2010 R.S.