RSA No. 3947 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3947 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.9.2009 Jasbir Singh ......Appellant Versus Gurdial 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: Shri Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration claiming estate of Mehar Singh, his father, by way of natural succession, was dismissed. As per the plaintiff, his father, Mehar Singh, was owner of the land measuring 52 kanals 6 marlas and, therefore, after the death of his father, the plaintiff is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share in the estate of his deceased father. The plaintiff also challenged the decree dated 5.2.1991 suffered by Mehar Singh in favour of the defendants alleging the same to be illegal. The plaintiff-appellant relied upon a family settlement dated 21.6.1978, wherein 27 kanals 4 marlas of land RSA No. 3947 of 2008 [2] was purportedly given to him, but after the death of Mehar Singh on 12.10.1995, the plaintiff sought mutation of inheritance of Mehar Singh, but was not given any share in the estate of Mehar Singh, which led to the filing of the present suit. In the written statement, it was pointed out that initially the plaintiff filed a suit in respect of the land measuring 49 kanals situated at village Khuhi Khera against Mehar Singh. The decree was granted in the said suit on the basis of family settlement. Subsequently, he filed a suit in respect of the land of village Vattu Bhatti, but the said suit was withdrawn. It was pointed out that Mehar Singh was owner of the land measuring 49 kanals at village Khuhi Khera. The plaintiff got the land of village Khuhi Khera in the family settlement, whereas the land measuring 127 kanals in which Mehar Singh had a share was situated in village Nizamdinwala, which was subject matter of river action and in which only 63 kanals of land was cultivable. It was also pointed out that the land measuring 63 kanals was transferred to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in equal shares. Still further, Mehar Singh executed a registered Will dated 16.8.1988 and thus, the defendants are owners on the basis of the said Will and the plaintiff has no share in the property of Mehar Singh at village Nijamdinwala, as he has got his separate share in village Khuhi Khera. To prove the aforesaid Will, the defendants have examined DW1 Amrit Singh, attesting witness and DW2 Jatinder Singh Bhatia, document writer. On the basis of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, learned trial Court returned a finding that the Will Exhibit RSA No. 3947 of 2008 [3] D.1 is proved to be executed and is not surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. In respect of the family settlement propounded by the plaintiff, the learned trial Court found that the land of village Khuhi Khera stood transferred to the plaintiff vide judgment and decree exhibits P.6 and P.7. Thus, it was found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the remaining property of deceased Mehar Singh. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no recital in the proceedings leading to the consent decree dated 5.2.1991 that Mehar Singh has executed Will dated 16.8.1988 in respect of the land situated in village Nizamdinwala. Therefore, the Will propounded by the defendants is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. The said fact by itself is not sufficient to return a finding that the Will dated 16.8.1988 Exhibit D.1 is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. The Will is to take effect only after the death of the testator and, therefore, there was no occasion to make mention of the said Will in the proceedings leading to the consent decree, which is recognising rights of the family in the presenti. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] 14.9.2009 JUDGE ds