RSA No. 1580 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 3322 of 2008 Date of decision: February 3,2009 Smt. Roshni Devi daugher of Dhanpati ..Petitioner Versus Dharambir @ Dharamvir Singh Yadav and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This order of mine shall dispose of two Civil Revision petitions, i.e.,C.R.No.3319 of 2008 and 3322 of 2008-Smt. Roshni Devi daugher of Dhanpati Versus Dharambir @ Dharamvir Singh Yadav and others as the similar question of law on similar facts is involved between the same parties. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.3322 of 2008. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that after the decision of land acquisition case No. 103/1.2.1999, Smt. Dhanpati (mother of the petitioner and contesting respondent and other respondents) filed RFA No.1035 of 2003, which was allowed by this Court on19.5.2006. Smt. Dhanpati mother of the petitioner died on 20.8.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner, contesting respondent and Performa respondent filed execution petition No.121 of 2006 in the court of Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. The said execution petition was filed by the petitioner and other respondents jointly. During the pendency of the aforesaid execution petition, RSA No. 1580 of 2008 2 respondent No.1 Dharambir filed application for impleading himself as legal representative of Dhanpati on the basis of a Will dated 7.8.2006 claiming therein that the petitioner and other performa respondents have no right, title or interest in the present execution application as Dhanpati during her life time executed a registered Will dated 7.8.2006 in his favour and according to the said Will he alone is entitled to inherit the property left by Dhanpati (deceased) to the exclusion of other natural legal heirs and therefore, the order dated 22.1.2008 passed by the executing court impleading of the legal representatives of deceased Dhanpati is wrong and liable to be set aside. He also prayed that he be impleaded as legal representative of deceased Dhanapti on the basis of Will left by her and the decretal amount deposited in the name of Dhanpati may be ordered to be released to him. The aforesaid application was contested by the private respondents. Execution of Will dated 7.8.2006 in favour of respondent No.1 was disputed. The right of respondent No.1 to get the compensation alone to the exclusion of the petitioners and other performa respondents was also disputed. The competence of the executing court to release the compensation in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of alleged Will was also challenged and it was prayed that the aforesaid application be rejected. The Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide impugned order dated 21.5.2008 framed the following issues for decision of the executing court:- (a) Whether the decree holder Smt. Dhanpati daughter of Dhumi Ram had executed a genuine and valid Will dated 7.8.2006 in favour of her son Dharambir Singh ?OPA (b) Relief. The case was adjourned for recording of the evidenced of the parties. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order of the court on the ground that the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon has no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness and validity of the alleged Will and the same could be done only in a competent court of jurisdiction. RSA No. 1580 of 2008 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts are not in dispute. The only point to be decided in this case is whether the executing court can decide the inter se dispute between the parties regarding the inheritance of Dhanpati on the basis of a Will dated 7.8.2006. In the case of Gopal Singh Versus Sher Singh and others 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 842, it has been held by this court that inter se dispute between the legal heirs cannot be decided by executing court. In the case of Charanjit Singh Versus Bharatinder Singh (1987-1) 91 P.L.R. 403, all the legal heirs were impleaded to represent the estate of deceased while leaving the question about the genuineness and validity of the Will open. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrs. Annapam Prauthi and others Versus Smt. Rajen Bal and others, AIR 1988 S.C. 2041 held that it would be open to the applicant to claim her right under the Will in an independent proceedings but such dispute cannot be adjudicated upon in a susit against the third person. Thus in view of the aforesaid judgments, the order dated 21.5.2008 whereby the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon while executing the judgment and decree passed in RFA No.1035 of 2003 has framed the issue regarding the validity of the Will of deceased Dhanpati for deciding the inter se dispute of the parties cannot be sustained. The impugned order being against law is set aside with the observations that the executing court will execute the decree in question and the execution shall be subject to the rights of the rightful claimant which may be determined in any subsequent suit/separate remedy. In view of the above, both the Revision Petitions are allowed and the order dated 21.5.2008 is set aside. February 3, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE