Civil Revision No.1856 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1856 of 2009 Date of decision: 20-10-2009 Bikkar Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS Darshan Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The defendant-petitioners have approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 4.02.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the lower appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Both the courts below while adjudicating the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code have directed the parties to maintain status quo qua possession of the suit property and has further restrained the defendant-petitioners from alienating the same during the pendency of the suit. The observations of the lower appellate court recorded in Civil Revision No.1856 of 2009 -2- Para 12 of its judgment dated 4.02.2009 would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present revision petition, which are as under:- “12. Now, it is claim of the appellants/defendants that since the respondent/plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 are illegitimate children, therefore, they could not claim succession vis-a-vis Boota Singh. Also, the Will dated 12.5.2002 banked upon by the respondent/plaintiff is claimed to be forged and fabricated document. To so substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon AIR 1979 BOMBAY 176, titled Daddo Vs. Raghunath and 2001(1) Civil Court Cases – 87 titled Ramkali and Anr Vs. Mahila Shyamyati & Ors. I have gone through the aforesaid authorities. In AIR 1979 Bombay-176 (Supra), while dealing with the inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act, it was held that the Act does not expressly equate illegitimate children to legitimate children, in matters of inheritance and succession under the Act. The two do not stand at par but stand apart. The Act in terms separates and distinguishes the two and excludes the illegitimate from any right to intestate succession, except to the extent expressly enacted to the proviso to Sec. 3(1) (j). Further more, in 2001 (1) Civil Court Cases-87 (Supra), also Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court while dealing with the Hindu Succession Act, had held that illegitimate children are not entitled to succession certificate of his predecessor Civil Revision No.1856 of 2009 -3- father as illegitimate children are not included in the list of heirs of Class-1 in the Schedule to the Act. However, the aforesaid authorities are of no assistance to the defendants/appellants at this stage, as the nature of relationship between the parties and proving their parentage are the questions to be ascertained, when the evidence is brought on record. Further more, the respondent/plaintiff had set up the Will dated 12.5.2002 allegedly executed by Boota Singh in his favour. Even though, much emphasis is laid on the Will in question to be unregistered Will and on this account, it is claimed that the said Will is false and fabricated document, but however, this submission is not tenable. There is no requirement of law that the Will should be essentially registered. Even rights can be bequeathed by an unregistered Will. The Will in question has been placed on record. It bears the thumb impression, which are claimed to be that of Boota Singh. However, due execution of the Will is a question of evidence. At this stage, suffice to consider the Will to be bearing the thumb impressions, which are claimed to be that of Boota Singh, since deceased. The purpose of injunction is to preserve the suit property till the rights of the parties are adjudicated on merits and precisely on this account, prima-facie case does exist in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, so far as alienation of the suit property is concerned. Even the balance of convenience lies in Civil Revision No.1856 of 2009 -4- favour of the respondent/plaintiff, if the parties are being directed to maintain status quo qua possession over the suit property. This order of status quo has been resisted by the appellants/defendants as they themselves claimed to be in possession of the suit property. However, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants are established to be in possession of the suit property. Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 coming on record shows Boota Singh to be in possession of the same and such being the position, the lower Court had only option to direct the parties to maintain status quo qua possession over the suit property.” In view of the above, no ground for interference with the impugned orders by this Court under Article 227 of the Consitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) 20.10.2009 JUDGE manju