RSA No.3769 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3769 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Jasmer Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Chhajju Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The appellant, who was defendant No.2, in the suit has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the movable and immovable properites of Bhag Singh by virtue of Will dated 13.1.1997, was decreed further restraining the defendants including the appellant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent and also restraining them from alienating the suit land in any manner. In the written statement, defendant No.1 i.e. Jagir Singh had supported the execution of the Will dated 13.1.1997. Defendants No.2 and 3 (i.e. appellant and Banta Singh @ Balwant Singh, predecessor-in- interest of respondents No.3 to 15) had denied the execution of any Will dated 13.1.1997 of Bhag Singh-deceased. It was further stated that the said Will was a bogus, manipulated, fabricated and forged document. It was further submitted that the appellant had already filed a suit for declaration and joint possession challenging the said alleged Will dated RSA No.3769 of 2008 (O&M) 2 13.1.1997 and the suit was barred under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner and in possession of moveable and immoveable properties left behind by deceased Bhag Singh by virtue of Will dated 13.1.1997? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 10 CPC? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 9. Relief.” Parties led evidence in support of their respective case. After hearing both the sides, trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs and issues No.3 to 7 against the defendants accordingly. RSA No.3769 of 2008 (O&M) 3 It may also be noticed at this stage that under issue No.1, the trial Court held that bar of Section 10 CPC does not come in the way of the present suit as the defendants had already withdrawn the suit relating to the Will in question. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed with no order as to costs vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.10.2007. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants No.2 and 3 (through his LRs) filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed. Still not satisfied, defendant No.2 has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that the Will in question executed by Bhag Singh was legal. Before this Court also it could not be pointed out that any material evidence which controverts the aforesaid finding was ignored. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 19, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE