RSA No.4950 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4950 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: May 23, 2011. Nanak Singh. .. Appellant VERSUS Jagdish Singh etc. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for declaration against the defendants-appellants claiming that the plaintiffs- respondents were joint owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares, being co-owners after the death of Mohan Singh besides claiming declaration on the basis of natural inheritance and . . . 1 RSA No.4950 of 2010 (O&M) also challenged the validity of Will dated 23.12.1992, executed in favour of defendant No.1-appellant. The trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents but the lower appellate Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents on the basis of natural inheritance despite the fact that the Will challenged by the plaintiffs-respondents has not been proved by the defendant No.1-appellant. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed solely on the basis of the weaknesses of the defendant-appellant to establish the Will dated 23.12.1992, which had been validly executed in favour of the defendant-appellant. I have heard the counsel for the defendant- appellant and gone through the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. The said Court carefully considered the concept of onus and observed that in civil cases the onus shifts after the initially onus is established by one party. In the present case since the plaintiffs-respondents had been able to establish that they are sons of Mohan Singh, the original owner of the property along with the remaining defendants. After the plaintiffs established their right to inherit the property of Mohan Singh, it was incumbent upon the defendants-appellants to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs on the basis of inheritance by establishing the Will having failed to establish the validity of the Will of Mohan Singh in his favour. No infirmity can be found in the judgment of the lower appellate Court decreeing the . . . 2 RSA No.4950 of 2010 (O&M) suit of the plaintiffs-respondents holding that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the property left by Bant Singh. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff is required to stand on his own legs to get the suit decreed. There is no dispute regarding this settled proposition of law. In the peculiar circumstances of this case in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents, the defendant-appellant was required to establish the validity of the Will. No ground is made out for interference as no substantial question of law is involved. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 23, 2011. rka . . . 3