RSA No.60 of 1984 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.60 of 1984 Date of decision: 16.03.2010 Smt. Parsini .. Appellant Versus Sucha .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Piyush Bansal, Advocate for the respondent . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that she is the owner-in-possession of the suit property left behind by Bhagta on the ground that she had married him by Karewa and that the Will in favour of the respondent was a forged and false document. Both the Courts below found that the Will was a valid document and also that the appellant had not been able to prove that she had ever married Bhagta. Following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether marriage by a Jatt by way of Chaddar Andazi is recognized in the State of Punjab, where customary law in general is prevalent in the Jatt Community and no specific custom is required to be RSA No.60 of 1984 ::2:: proved by leading specific evidence. There is a presumption regarding general custom prevalent in Jatt and Jatt are governed by the customary law ? (ii) Whether the statement regarding Chaddar Andazi made by villagers while appearing in the witness box as Pws and remained un-rebutted by any other documentary evidence is sufficient to prove relationship of Bhagta and Parsini as husband and wife as per Section 50 of the India Evidence Act ? (iii) Whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed before the First Appellate Court for bringing on record death certificate of her previous husband Munshi who died on 17.06.1946, which shows that she was not having her living husband alive on the date when Chaddar Andazi was performed and such evidence which goes to the root of the case for deciding findings wrongly recorded to be rejected merely on the ground that the same will tentamount to filing lacuna in evidence and cannot be considered for just and proper adjudication of the case of the parties and will not render any help to court for deciding the case and delivering justice to the parties ? (iv) Whether a Will requires to give reasons for disinheriting a person who is treated as wife by the villagers for a long period of more than two decades and recorded in the Ration Card as well as Voters list alongwith the name of Bhagta as female can be ignored without giving reasons as to why she will not succeed to the property after the death of Bhagta ? RSA No.60 of 1984 ::3:: (v) Whether non-giving reasons in the Will regarding lady who has lived with the deceased for a long time as husband wife, amounts to suspicious circumstances for rejecting the Will ? (vi) Whether the failure to consider material evidence for decision of case amounts to passing of judgment and decree perverse and illegal ? Questions No.(i), (ii) and (iii) are related questions. Even though question No.(i) is a question of law yet the answer to that would have to depend upon the determination of a question of fact viz. Whether the appellant had got married to Bhagta by way of Karewa? In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Ex.P-2 (Ration Card) and Ex.P-3 (Voters List) and the testimony of PWs 1 and 2. Question No.(i), (ii) and (iii) are based on the relationship of the appellant and would assume importance if the Will in favour of the respondent is set aside. Both the Courts below have returned the finding in favour of the registered Will in favour of the respondent. The only ground taken in the plaint was that the Will did not bear the signatures of Bhagta and was a result of impersonation. No evidence was led by the appellant on these two salient facets. The only suspicious circumstance which has been pointed was that no provision had been made in the Will for the appellant. It is in this context that the relationship of the appellant and question Nos.(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) assume importance. In my opinion, having taken the plea that the Will was a result of forgery and impersonation it was incumbent upon the appellant to lead some evidence in respect thereof. Admittedly, no evidence has been led in this regard. On the other hand, the respondent has examined the scribe, one of the marginal witnesses as well as other witnesses to prove RSA No.60 of 1984 ::4:: that Bhagta was living with the respondent. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the finding regarding the validity of the Will is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once the Will is upheld the questions proposed, relating as they are to the alleged marriage of the appellant with the respondent recede into the back ground. Even if it is accepted that appellant was married to Bhagta by way of Karewa nama and even if it is accepted that no provision was made for her in the Will, it would not be such a suspicious circumstance as to render the Will inoperable. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. March 16, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE