RSA No.2655 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2655 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: June 02, 2011. Jaggar Singh and others. .. Appellants VERSUS Gurjant Singh and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of 3/8th share and plaintiff Nos.4 to 6, were owners in possession of 1/8th share out of half share of the land in the name of Jagta Singh. The plaintiffs-appellants claim that mutation of the . . . 1 RSA No.2655 of 2010 (O&M) property in dispute entered in favour of defendant-respondent No.4, on the basis of Will dated 05.06.1997, was illegal and that the Will was forged and a fictitious document. The plaintiffs had also claimed that they have become owners by virtue of adverse possession. The suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed by the Courts below mainly on the ground that they had failed to prove any evidence on the record. Issue No.5, regarding Will dated 05.06.1997, alleged to have been executed by Jagta Singh in favour of defendant No.4, has also been left undecided as even the defendants-respondents claiming benefit under the Will were not able to produce any evidence. Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs being nephews of deceased Jagta Singh, who died issueless, are entitled to inherit the property of Jagta Singh and that defendant No.4, cannot be held to be exclusive owner on the basis of the Will. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and I am of the opinion that since no evidence was produced by the plaintiffs-appellants before the Courts below, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for non-production of any evidence in support of their plea. So far as finding on issue No.5, is concerned, defendant-respondent No.4, was required to prove the some material expert of the Will dated 05.06.1997, to claim exclusive title of the property left by Jagta Singh. The trial Court while deciding issue No.5, onus of which issue was on defendants, held that the said issue stands waived of meaning thereby that no finding has . . . 2 RSA No.2655 of 2010 (O&M) been given by the trial Court or the lower appellate Court on the Will. Counsel for the appellants had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, to produce certain documents to establish the relationship with the successor-in-interest of Jagta Singh and to establish possession of the property which is mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Taking into consideration, the casual approach of the plaintiffs-appellants and having not given any reason for not producing the documents sought to be produced on the record, I do not find any ground to exercise the jurisdiction, at this belated stage, as the original suit had been filed in the year 2002. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice and fairness, it is observed that since the lower appellate Court has decided Issue Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 7, by observing that these stand waived of, the finding of the Court below on Issue Nos.2, 3 & 5 to 7, will not be res judicata for any subsequent proceedings regarding the Will or title of defendant-respondent No.4. The said issues will be deemed to have been left open for adjudication and will not be considered to have finally determined the rights of the parties on the basis of the Will. Dismissed with above observations. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE June 02, 2011. rka . . . 3