RSA No. 2104 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2104 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.5.2011. Mohan Lal Verma .......Appellant Vs. Improvement Trust, Phagwara & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to inherit the property of his deceased brother Yashpal and plaintiff placed reliance on will dated 16.6.1996. Yashpal Sharma was married to defendant No.3 Anita in July 1981 and their marriage was legally dissolved as per custom on 26.4.1983 and the same was got registered on 27.4.1983. As per the said writing, defendant No. 3 had relinquished her claim qua the property of Yashpal Sharma. Defendants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement, admitted that Yashpal Verma had applied for a plot and the same was allotted to him but when the intimation was sent to the allottee, it transpired that he had already died. The execution of the will and the dissolution deed qua marriage of the RSA No. 2104 of 2011 (O&M) -2- plaintiff with defendant No.3 were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunctions prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 2.1.2009, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the plaintiff, by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.2011. Hence, the present appeal by plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff had been successful in proving the due execution of the Will dated 16.6.1996, executed by Yashpal Verma in his favour. The improvement trust had no locus standi to challenge the will. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on 'Malkiat Singh versus Kashmiri Lal 2000(1) PLR 295' wherein it was held that a stranger had no right to challenge the will in because even if he succeeds in challenging the will, he would not get the share of the executant. RSA No. 2104 of 2011 (O&M) -3- After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, a plot was allotted to Yashpal Verma by the defendants No. 1 and 2 but when the intimation qua the allotment was sent to the allottee, it transpired that the allottee had died. The case of the plaintiff is that Yashpal Verma had executed a will in his favour on 16.6.1996. The said will was got registered on 4.4.2002. In order to prove the due execution of the will, plaintiff examined Tejpal as PW-4, one of the attesting witness to the will. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding that the will, set-up by the plaintiff, was not a genuine will and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The will was allegedly executed by the executant when he was about 45 years old. Although in the will, the executant had stated that he remained ill and was being looked after by Mohan Lal-plaintiff, and hence, he was executing the will in favour of his brother but the plaintiff had failed to lead any evidence qua the illness, suffered by Yashpal Verma. No reasons were given in the will as to why the other heirs were being disinherited. The will in question was not got registered immediately by the executant but has been got registered after the death of the executant in the year 2002. The plot in question was allotted to the executant in the year 2000. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the will set-up by the plaintiff does not appear to be a genuine will. It is a settled preposition of law that the plaintiff has to plead and prove his case and has to stand on his own legs. It was for the plaintiff to establish that the will in question was a genuine document. RSA No. 2104 of 2011 (O&M) -4- However, the plaintiff had failed to do so. In these circumstances, there is no force in the arguments, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, fails to advance the case of the appellant as the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the defendants No. 1 and 2 are not strangers. The property in dispute belongs to defendants No. 1 and 2 and it was allotted by it to Yashpal Verma. Hence, they cannot be described as strangers. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 13, 2011 Gurpreet