RSA No.1323 of 2003 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 18, 2009 1. RSA No. 1323 of 2003 (O&M) Rani alias Balwinder Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Jagdish Singh and others ...... Respondents 2. RSA No. 1321 of 2003 Rani alias Balwinder Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Kirpal Kaur and others ...... Respondents 3. RSA No. 1322 of 2003 Rani alias Balwinder Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Kirpal Kaur and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Venu Gopal Johar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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? RSA No.1323 of 2003 (O&M) 2 Ajay Tewari, J. By this judgment, apart from the present appeal, RSA Nos. 1321 of 2003 and 1322 of 2003 are also being decided since they arise out of the same suit/counter claim. The appellant had filed a suit challenging Will dated 15.3.90 executed by Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Kirpal Kaur and Jagdish Singh. The property was originally owned by Mehar Singh and this dispute is between the LRs of his two sons. The appellant is daughter of one son while the contesting respondents are son and wife of the other son. The respondent No.1 filed a counter claim alleging that apart from the will in question his grand mother Bhagwan Kaur had also suffered a decree in his favour. The trial court accepted the will and discarded the counter claim on the ground that the decree required registration. Two appeals were filed by the appellant while the respondent No.1 filed cross objections with regard to the finding on the decree. The two appeals of the appellant were dismissed while the cross objections of the respondent No.1 were allowed. The learned lower Appellate Court affirmed the finding on the will and further, reversing the finding of the learned trial court, held that the decree did not require registration. Hence these appeals. The following questions have been proposed:- A) Whether the consent decree dated 3.10.1991 allegedly suffered by Bhagwan Kaur in favour of respondent Jagdish Singh was/is wholly illegal, null and void on account of non- registration under section 17 of the Registration Act? B) Whether the decree dated 3.10.1991 passed after the death of Bhagwan Kaur on 20.9.1991 could vest any right, title RSA No.1323 of 2003 (O&M) 3 or interest in favour of Jagdish Singh or bind her heirs in any manner? C) Whether respondent Jagdish Singh could have held to have acquired any right, title or interest pursuant to the decree dated 3.10.1991 especially as he failed to prove any pre- existing right in the estate of Bhagwan Kaur? D) Whether the will dated 15.3. 1990 could at all be held to have been duly and validly executed and attested especially when the attesting witnesses of the will DW5 Niranjan Singh and DW6 Jarnail Singh did not support the will at all as required in law and despite the fact were declared hostile? Apart from these questions the courts below have also found that compromise Ex.D5 had been executed between the parties and pursuant to that compromise some land and money were given to the appellant pursuant to which she had withdrawn an earlier suit. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to deny this. On this score alone this suit would be not maintainable. However, even as regards the questions proposed it would be seen that question No. (D) which relates to the will is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings and the evidence and has not been able to persuade me that the findings are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once the will is held to have been accepted the findings on questions No. (A), (B) and (C) become academic, since the net result would be that the property of Bhagwan Kaur would go to the contesting respondents. RSA No.1323 of 2003 (O&M) 4 Consequently these appeals as well as the applications for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 18, 2009 sunita