IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1876 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.2.2011 Brij Mohan … Appellant Versus Inder Mohan and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was absolute owner in possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that originally the property in question was owned by Lashkari Chand. After his death in the year 1957, the property devolved on the plaintiff , defendants and their mother Smt.Shanti Devi. Narinder Mohan brother of the plaintiff had died in the year 1968. The pedigree table as shown in para No.1 of the judgment of trial Court is as under:- Late Capt.Lashkari Chand (died on 15.2.57) -Shanti Devi, Widow (died on 22.12.1998 Brij Mohan (son) Plaintiff Inder Mohan (son) Deft.No.1 Narinder Mohan (son) (died on 07.04.68) Sudesh Kumari (daughter) Deft.No.2 Asha Kiran (daughter) Deft.No.3. Defendant No.1 had gone to England in the year 1961 and was presently settled there. His last visit to India was in the year 1976. Defendant No.1 had sold his 1/6th share in the property to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed. However, in order to maintain peace in the family, plaintiff had executed a sale deed in favour of his mother qua the said property. Defendant No.2 was married in the year 1964 and was living with her family happily. Defendant No.3 was married in the year 1976 and was residing in Australia. Plaintiff was, thus, left to look after his mother-Shanti Devi. Mother of the plaintiff died on 22.12.1998 and on search of her papers etc. it was found that Shanti Devi had executed a Will dated 30.7.1997 in favour of the plaintiff. RSA No.1876 of 2010 (O&M) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 were proceeded ex parte as none appeared on their behalf despite service. Defendant No.2 in her written statement, denied that Shanti Devi had ever executed a Will dated 30.7.1997 in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, Shanti Devi had executed a registered Will dated 18.12.1995 and mutation had been sanctioned on the basis of the said Will. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the deceased Shanti Devi executed a valid Will dated 30.07.1997 in favour of Plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the Plaintiff is owner in possession of the property marked 3A and 3B as shown in the site plan? OPP 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 6. Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act, conduct and admission? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 8. Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 9. Whether the Will dated 30.07.1997 is forged and fabricated document?OPD 10. Whether deceased Shanti Devi executed Will dated 18.12.1995 in favour of Defendant and Plaintiff? OPD 11. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2005, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and defendant No.2 preferred cross-objections. Vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissed the appeal filled by the plaintiff. Cross-objections were dismissed for want of appearance of the cross-objector. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. 2 RSA No.1876 of 2010 (O&M) Plaintiff in the present case has set up a Will dated 30.7.1997 alleged to have been executed by his mother in his favour. Will is a sacred document and speaks of mind of the executant after his/her death. In order to prove the due execution of a Will, the propounder of the Will is required to examine at least one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. The propounder of the Will is further required to dispel any suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will in order to establish its genuineness. Will is not required to be compulsorily registered but registration of Will goes a long way in proving the genuineness of the Will. Will dated 30.7.1997 is a un-registered Will. In order to prove its execution, plaintiff examined Krishan Swaroop and Harbahajan Singh the attesting witnesses of the Will in question. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3. Mutation qua the inheritance of the Shanti Devi was sanctioned on the basis of her Will dated 18.12.1995. Plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that he did not move any application to the municipal authorities when the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of last Will dated 18.12.1995 executed by Shanti Devi. Thus, the existence of the Will dated 18.12.1995 is not in dispute. A perusal of Will dated 30.7.1997 reveals that the executant has not made a mention in it qua the earlier Wills including Will dated 18.12.1995 executed by her. It has also come on record that the executant had earlier executed Wills dated 29.5.1993, 18.1.1993 and 20.1.1989 before executing Will dated 18.12.1995. All the said Wills were got registered by the executant. However, Will set up by the plaintiff was not got registered by the executant. In normal circumstances, the executant was expected to get the Will Ex.P-1 also registered if she had executed it. In these circumstances, the Will set up by the plaintiff is rendered suspicious document as the same was not got registered by the executant. Moreover, the factum of execution of earlier Wills is not mentioned in the Will set up by the plaintiff nor the earlier last Will was cancelled by the executant. Thus, the courts below had rightly held that the Will set up by the plaintiff was surrounding of suspicious circumstances. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 3 RSA No.1876 of 2010 (O&M) ( Sabina ) Judge 14.02.2011 sd 4