R.S.A.No. 2383 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2383 of 2007 Date of decision: 8.3.2011 Lt.Col.Surender Mankotia and others ......Appellants Versus Sunita Mankotia and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for respondents . **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of partition. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that D.S. Mankotia was owner of the house No.668 Sector 33-B, Chandigarh, which had been purchased by him out of Joint Hindu Family funds. Plaintiffs and defendant No.2 were the sons of D.S.Mankotia, whereas, defendant No.1 was his daughter. After the death of D.S.Mankotia, the house was transferred in the name of Durga Devi, his wife. R.S.A.No. 2383 of 2007 2 Defendant No.1 was an educated lady and had got married in the year 1982 to a man of her choice, but unfortunately a dispute arose between them and defendant No.1 got a decree of divorce against her husband. Defendant no.1 was maintaining a daughter. Defendant No.1 was also running her business of screen printing press in the garage of the house in dispute. Defendant No.2 was serving with Indian Air Force as Flight Lieutenant but he was discharged on medical grounds as he required psychiatric treatment. Thereafter, defendant No.2 started residing with his mother. Defendant No.2 got married in the year 1981 but his wife got a decree of divorce against him. Durga Devi died on 11.5.1996. After her death all her children had inherited the house in dispute. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants in their written statement admitted the relationship between the parties and the fact that D.S.Mankotia was the owner of the property in dispute. After his death, the house in dispute was inherited by his wife Durga Devi. A will dated 27.12.1995 was executed by Durga Devi in favour of defendant No.1 qua the house in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are the joint owners of Hindu Undivided Family property? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession by way of partition? OPP 2-A Whether the property in dispute is HUF property. If so its effect? OPP R.S.A.No. 2383 of 2007 3 2-B Whether the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants had duly executed registered Will dated 27.12.1995 in favour of defendant No.1 and its effect ? OPP 3. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2004. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff No.2 and legal representatives of plaintiff No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.3.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by plaintiff No.2 and legal representatives of plaintiff No.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Defendant No.1 has based reliance on registered Will executed by her mother Durga Devi in her favour. Will is a sacred document that speaks of the mind of the executant after his death. In order to prove the due execution of the Will in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1873, the propounder of the Will is required to examine atleast one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. It is further required to be established by the propounder of the Will that the executant and the attesting witnesses had signed the Will in the presence of each other. The propounder of the Will is also required to dispel any suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. In the present case the Will set up by defendant No.1 is a registered one. Although registration of Will is not compulsory but it R.S.A.No. 2383 of 2007 4 goes a long way in proving its genuineness. A perusal of the Will in question Ex.D-1 reveals that the same bears the photograph of the executant which has been duly attested by the Sub Registrar. The executant has stated in the Will that she had got three sons and one daughter. Devinder Singh Mankotia and Surender Mankotia, sons of the executant, were well settled in life and did not require her help financially or otherwise. Sunita Mankotia, daughter of the executant, was a divorcee and had nobody to look after her except the executant. Ravinder Singh, son of the executant, was un-employed and was physically handicapped. In view of this, the executant executed the Will in favour of her daughter, qua the house in question and further stated in the Will that her daughter would maintain Ravinder Singh till his death. So far as the other household articles etc. were concerned, the Will was executed by the executant in favour of her daughter and son Ravinder Singh. As per the endorsement made by the Sub Registrar, Chandigarh, the contents of the Will were duly admitted by the executant as correct. A presumption of truth is attached to the said endorsement. There is nothing on record to rebut the said presumption. In order to prove the execution of the Will, the defendant examined Sukhdev Kumar Vaid as DW-1 and Som Raj Sharma as DW-2, who were the attesting witnesses of the Will. Defendant No.1 also appeared in the witness box as DW-8. The attesting witnesses to the Will proved the due execution of the Will. In these circumstances the Courts below had rightly held that the Will in question was duly executed by the executant. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. R.S.A.No. 2383 of 2007 5 Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 08, 2011 anita