-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 20, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 (O&M). Jagtar Singh and others ... Appellants VERSUS Sandeep Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the plaintiff/caveator/respondent Sandeep Singh. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff-respondent Sandeep Singh, deaf and dumb son of late Jeewan Singh, filed the instant suit through her mother -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 (O&M). and natural guardian Kulbir Kaur against the defendants- appellants and others, for joint possession of 6/15th share out of 1/3rd share of deceased Amar Singh (grand father of plaintiff -respondent Sandeep Singh) in the land measuring 210 Kanals 2 Marlas, described in the head note of the plaint, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining Jagtar Singh (defendant-appellant No.1), who is one of the brothers of the father of the plaintiff, from alienating 6/15th share of the land in dispute by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or in any other manner or mode whatsoever to anybody. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.2007, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that Amar Singh, grand father of the plaintiff, had duly executed a legal, valid and registered Will in favour of Jagtar Singh (defendant-appellant No.1) and, therefore, plaintiff-respondent Sandeep Singh, could not be held to be a co-sharer in the property to the extent of 6/15th share. The plaintiff went in appeal before the lower appellate Court against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2007 passed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 16.3.2009, accepted the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent and by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent Sandeep Singh for joint possession of the land in dispute and for the injunction as prayed for. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 (O&M). Hence, this appeal by defendants-appellant Jagtar Singh, brother of the the father of plaintiff Sandeep Singh and Jagir Kaur, Sawinder Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur, sisters of the father of plaintiff Sandeep Singh. I have heard Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff/caveator/respondent Sandeep Singh and have gone through the records of the case. The case set up on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent Sandeep Singh was that the suit property was ancestral / co- parcenary property in the hands of Amar Singh; that Amar Singh was Manager and Karta of Joint Hindu Family and he continued as such till his death; that Amar Singh died on 12.3.2001 and was survived by his two sons, namely, Jeewan Singh (father of the plaintiff) and Jagtar Singh (defendant-appellant No.1) and three daughters, namely, Jagir Kaur, Sawinder Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur (defendants-appellants Nos.2 to 4); that Jeewan Singh, father of the plaintiff, also died and is survived by the plaintiff and his mother Kulbir Kaur; and that Kulbir Kaur has since remarried with Kulwinder Singh. Further case of the plaintiff was that the Will dated 20.7.1988 allegedly executed by Amar Singh in favour of Jagtar Singh (defendant-appellant No.1) by virtue of which Jagtar Singh had become absolute owner of the suit property to the detriment of all the other legal heirs of Amar Singh, was a false document and that Amar Singh did not execute any valid -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 (O&M). Will in favour of Jagtar Singh. Plaintiff-respondent Sandeep Singh, who is deaf and dumb, had filed this suit through her mother and natural guardian Kulbir Kaur against the defendants- appellants and others, for joint possession of 6/15th share out of 1/3rd share of deceased Amar Singh in the land measuring 210 Kanals 2 Marlas, with further relief of permanent injunction restraining Jagtar Singh (defendant-appellant No.1), from alienating 6/15th share of the land in dispute by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or in any other manner or mode whatsoever to anybody. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff whereas the lower appellate Court decreed the same, as has been noticed above. Admittedly, the property in dispute was not a Joint Hindu Family property. The question which now requires determination is - as to whether the Will dated 20.7.1988 allegedly executed by Amar Singh in favour of his son Jagtar Singh whereby he (Amar Singh) deprived all his other legal heirs of their right to inherit his property, is a valid and trustworthy document. The Will is Exhibit D.1 on record. At the time of execution of Will, Kartar Kaur, wife of Amar Singh was alive. Two daughters of Amar Singh, namely, Sawinder Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur were unmarried. Another daughter of Amar Singh, namely, Jagir Kaur had by then married. Amar Singh, as per contents of the Will, deprived his wife Kartar Singh, his married unmarried daughters from their legal right of inheritance. Sandeep Singh is deaf and dumb grand son of Amar -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 (O&M). Singh, whose mother Kulbir Kaur had been serving Amar Singh till she remarried in the year 1997. Both Sandeep Singh and Kulbir Kaur had also been deprived of their legal right to inherit the suit land. Amar Singh, in the said Will, did not even mention as to who will take care of his wife Kartar Kaur and he did not make any provision in the Will for Kartar Kaur. The lower appellate Court, while discarding the Will as a suspicious document, inter alia, took into consideration the fact that the testator had deprived his wife, two unmarried daughters, one married daughter, his grand son and his daughter-in-law of their valuable and legal right of inheritance. This finding of the lower appellate Court is unimpeachable. Besides, when the Will (Exhibit D.1) was executed, Amar Singh was admitted in the hospital at Gumtala as his left leg had to be amputated because of the accident. The Will dated 20.7.1988 cannot, therefore, be said to be the resulf of free and sound disposing mind of Amar Singh. There is no evidence on record from where it can be gathered that Amar Singh had come to the office of Sub Registrar with the assistance of Jagtar Singh or any other person as his left leg had been amputated. In view of these facts, the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants i.e Major Singh vs. Rattan Singh (dead) by L.Rs, 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 89, Jaswinder Singh and others vs. Kartar Singh and others, 2004 (3) Civil Courts Cases 80(P & H) and Surjit Kaur Vs. Nirver Singh (Dead) through L.Rs, 2005 (1) Civil -6- Regular Second Appeal No. 3485 of 2009 (O&M). Court Cases 487 (P&H) to assail the finding of the lower appellate Court with regard to the discarding of the Will (Exhibit D.1) are of no help to the appellants. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 20, 2011. JUDGE ak