RSA No.3752 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3752 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2009 Rampal and others ......Appellants Versus Smt.Shamo and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the caveators. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. As per the case of the plaintiffs, one Jage Ram son of Amar Singh son of Ramji Lal was owner in possession of the suit land. Jage Ram died on 25.7.1977 as unmarried, issueless and without making any testamentary deposition. Fateh Singh son of Johri died on 9.5.2001 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors to his estate including the property in dispute. It was further pleaded that Suraj Bhan defendant was a clever person. Suraj Bhan taking advantage of the simplicity of Fateh Singh without his knowledge and in his absence got mutation No.505 entered in the revenue record on 1.9.1977 claiming his entitlement to the share of Jage Ram on the strength of some oral Will. It was further pleaded that as per Rapat Roznamcha dated 1.9.1977, Suraj Bhan had reported to the Patwari Halqa that Jage Ram deceased had executed a registered Will in his favour. When the hearing of the mutation No.505 came up before the revenue authorities on 23.1.1978, it was recorded that the father of the present plaintiffs appeared before the Revenue Officer and contested the mutation. As per the contentions of the RSA No.3752 of 2008(O&M) 2 plaintiffs, the said fact was wrong because their father never appeared before the Revenue Officers and Suraj Bhan had made secret arrangement with the revenue officers for getting the mutation sanctioned in his favour. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that mutation was got incorporated in the revenue record in connivance with the revenue authorities in the subsequent jamabandi for the years 1981-82, 1986-87, 1991-92, 1996-97, 2001-2002. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that the share of Jage Ram was to be devolved equally on the defendant and on the father of the plaintiffs and in this way in the entire land as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 the respective share of the defendant was 7/12 and that of the plaintiffs was 5/12. On the basis of the above said facts, the plaintiffs alleged that they were in joint possession of the land described in the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 and were entitled to 5/12 share in the suit land and other 7/12 share belonged to defendants, being agnates of Jage Ram. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 5/12 share and the defendant is owner to the extent of 7/12 share in the total land measuring 49 kanals 12 marlas and prayed for a decree of joint possession of the suit land. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants, who resisted the suit and filed the written statement wherein preliminary objections were raised with regard to the maintainability and the locus standi of the plaintiffs and the suit being time barred. On merits, the defendants contended that Jage Ram, who died issueless, had executed a Will prior to his death in favour of their father-Suraj Bhan and thus, he was entitled to the land of Jage Ram, being beneficiary under the Will. It was contended that the plaintiffs had no concern with the property in dispute. It was pleaded to be wrong that the proceedings of the entering of mutation, execution of the RSA No.3752 of 2008(O&M) 3 Will and sanctioning of mutation by the Revenue Authorities was not known to the father of the plaintiffs, rather, it was specifically contended that in fact the father of the plaintiffs appeared before the Tehsildar and also in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat and raised objections and the mutation was treated as contested and decided by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, on 14.3.1978. The defendant has protected the said order and the Will as correct, true and valid. Further, it was contended that Jage Ram was uncle of the defendant-Suraj Bhan, who was having no issue and so the defendant was serving and helping him and used to reside with the defendant and out of his sweet will Jage Ram had executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant and thus, Fateh Singh was not entitled to any property of Jage Ram. It was also pleaded that share of Chand Kaur had gone to the defendant-Suraj Bhan but the father of the plaintiffs could not get the share of the deceased Jage Ram as the whole share devolved on the defendant on the basis of the Will in his favour. In view of the above said facts, the defendant has prayed that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any decree as prayed for and has sought dismissal of the suit. After conclusion of the evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.7.2008. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. The relationship of the parties is not disputed. It is also the admitted case of RSA No.3752 of 2008(O&M) 4 the plaintiffs that they are agnates and are claiming the right to the inheritance through their father Fateh Singh. The various revenue records placed on the file by the plaintiffs confirm that Jage Ram was owner in possession of the suit property and mutation Ex.D1 placed on record by the defendant on the file confirms that after death of Jage Ram, his inheritance was decided and the Will was submitted by Suraj Bhan son of Johri-defendant, which was contested by the father of the plaintiffs Fateh Singh. The matter was referred to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sonepat who passed an order dated 14.3.1978 considering the objections of Fateh Singh and the matter was compromised between Fateh Singh and Suraj Bhan and Fateh Singh has admitted the Will in favour of Suraj Bhan and thereafter the mutation in favour of Suraj Bhan was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. All these facts show that the father of the plaintiffs had contested the mutation and the Will allegedly made by Jage Ram but ultimately the father of the plaintiffs had accepted the Will and accordingly the mutation in respect of the share of Jage Ram was sanctioned in favour of Suraj Bhan. Obviously, in the instant case, the plaintiffs have no independent right in the share of Jage Ram. They have claimed their inheritance through their father Fateh Singh but the father of the plaintiffs had not challenged the Will during his life time and the same having been decided against him, the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Suraj Bhan-defendant on the basis of the Will. It is worthwhile to mention here that Fateh Singh, father of the plaintiffs, had not filed any suit in the Civil Court and had not challenged his right of inheritance before the Civil Court. All this shows that the father of the plaintiffs has accepted and admitted the right of defendant-Suraj Bhan on the basis of Will and if that was so, the plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest to challenge the said mutation as well as order of Collector and RSA No.3752 of 2008(O&M) 5 under such circumstances, even if the defendant has not placed the original Will on the file of this suit, it will not give any benefit to the plaintiffs because they have to stand independently on their own legs and cannot get relief of omissions of the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiffs have no independent right in the instant case except the right of inheritance from their father Fateh Singh, who has accepted the Will as correct. The stand taken by the plaintiffs in the suit is that Fateh Singh never appeared before the Revenue Authorities admitting the claim of Suraj Bhan. However, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their pleaded case. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 6, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE