Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jeet Singh vs Tilak Raj on 22 March, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No. 242 of 2008 alongwith
RSA Nos. 243, 306 & 307 of 2008.
.
Reserved on 08.03.2017.
Decided on:22.3.2017.
1. RSA No. 242 of 2008.
Jeet Singh ...appellant/plaintiff.
of
Versus
Tilak Raj ... respondent/defendant.
2. RSA No. 243 of 2008.
rt
Jeet Singh ...appellant/plaintiff.
Versus
Tilak Raj ... respondent/defendant.
3. RSA No. 306 of 2008.
Tilak Raj ...appellant/plaintiff.
Versus
Jeet Singh ... respondent/defendant.
4. RSA No. 307 of 2008.
Tilak Raj ...appellant/plaintiff.
Versus
Jeet Singh ... respondent/defendant.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP
2
................................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Jamuna Pathik, Advocate for
appellant in RSA No. 242 & 243 of 2008
and Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Gautam Advocate for the
appellant in RSA No. 306 & 307 of 2008.
of
For the respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate for
rt respondent in RSA No. 242 & 243 of 2008
and Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Jamuna Pathik, Advocate in RSA No.
306 & 307 of 2008.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
All these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as the present appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Una dated 31.3.2008 in the following cases; Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2006 titled Tilak Raj Vs. Jeet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2006 titled Tilak Raj Vs. Jeet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2006 titled Jagan Nath Vs. Tilak Raj and another, which appeals arose from the common judgment passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 3Court No.1, Una in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 titled Jeet Singh Vs. Tilak Raj and Civil Suit No. 213 of 1996 titled Tilak Raj Vs. Jeet .
Singh and another decided on 30.3.2006.
2. Factual controversy involved in these appeals is as under.
3. Jeet Singh son of Rikhi Ram filed Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 on the grounds that Chiranji Lal son of Kanshi Ram was owner of of suit land measuring 0-21-39 comprised in Khewat No. 222min, Khatauni No. 365min, Khasra No. 3938(new) 84/15/1 (old) situated in rt village Panjawar, Tehsil and District Una and plaintiff was cultivating the suit land at the spot since last more than 40 years on payment of Batai. According to the plaintiff due to cordial relations between him and deceased Charanji Lal, entry in the revenue record could not be corrected but he continued to be in actual physical possession over the suit land. Deceased Charanji Lal was unmarried and it was the plaintiff who rendered all kind of services to Charanji Lal during his lifetime till his death. Charanji Lal executed a 'Will' out of his free will and volition and in a sound state of mind on account of love and affection, in favour of the plaintiff and defendant on 26.3.1996. As per plaintiff defendant Tilak Raj alleged that Charanji Lal had also executed a 'Will' in his favour on 6.2.1996, and when both these 'Wills' were presented before Revenue Authorities for mutation, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 4 Tehsildar (Settlement) illegally ignored the 'Will' which was in favour of the plaintiff and attested mutation No. 255 dated 8.5.1996 in .
favour of the defendant without following the provisions required to be followed while sanctioning mutation. On these grounds, it was urged by plaintiff that the mutation attested in favour of Tilak Raj was illegal, null and void. It was also the case of the plaintiff that he had of also acquired proprietary rights over the suit land after enforcement of H.P. Land Reforms & Tenancy Act as well as Rules framed rt thereunder. Further as per the plaintiff on the basis of illegal entry, defendant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and trying to change nature of the suit land. On these bases, plaintiff filed said suit praying for decree for declaration that he was owner in possession of suit land on the basis of last genuine 'Will' of deceased testator Charanji Lal dated 26.3.1996 and mutation entered in favour of defendant Tilak Raj on the basis of 'Will' dated 6.2.1996 was illegal, null and void and also for decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in any manner in the peaceful and lawful possession of plaintiff as owner and further for restraining defendant from alienating or changing the nature of suit land in any manner whatsoever and in the alternative for decree for possession in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 5 case defendant succeeded in ousting the plaintiff from the suit land during the pendency of the suit.
.
4. The said claim of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant who denied that plaintiff had ever served Charanji Lal or that he was inducted as tenant over the suit land or was ever in possession over the suit land. As per defendant, Charanji Lal executed Will dated of 6.2.1996 in his favour in presence of respected villagers and mutation sanctioned in his favour on the basis of said Will was a valid mutation rt and on the basis of mutation so attested in his favour on the basis of said Will, he was coming in possession over the suit land as its owner.
It was further the case of the defendant that mutation was rightly sanctioned in his favour on the basis of valid Will executed by Charanji Lal on account of love and affection and services rendered to the testator by the defendant.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 vide order dated 22.5.1997 and 12.12.2000 as under:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff was non-occupancy tenant over the suit land, if so, its effect? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit ? OPP. 2A. Whether late Charanji Lal had executed a Will in favour of the defendant on 6.2.1996? OPD.
2-B. Whether late Charanji Lal has executed a valid and last Will 26.3.1996 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP.
3. Relief.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 6
6. Civil Suit No. 213 of 1996 was filed by Tilak Raj (defendant in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996) against Jeet Singh (Plaintiff .
in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996) and Jagan Nath. The case put forth in the said suit was that land measuring 0-44-44 square meters comprising in Khasra No. 3481, 3482, 3716, 3721, 3938, Khatauni No. 365, Khewat No. 222 situated at Village Panjawar, Tehsil and of District Una was exclusively owned and possessed by plaintiff and defendants were utter strangers to the suit land who had no right, title rt or interest over the suit land. According to the plaintiff, defendants were threatening to interfere and change the nature of suit land as well as to raise construction over the suit land without any right and had also started collecting building material at the spot. On these bases the suit was filed praying decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in any manner, changing nature, raising any sort of construction as well as cutting and removing the trees standing over the suit land. In the alternative decree for possession by way of mandatory injunction was also prayed for.
7. Defendant No.1 Jeet Singh contested the claim of plaintiff on the ground that suit was not maintainable as plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. A preliminary objection was also taken on the ground that as the controversy ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 7 involved in this suit was also subject matter of Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996, therefore, proceedings in present suit be stayed under the .
provisions of Section 10 of the CPC. On merits case put forth by defendant No.1 was that Charanji Lal had executed a valid Will dated 26.3.1996 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and land comprised in Khasra No. 3938 measuring 05 kanal 11 marlas, which of was coming in possession of defendant No.1 since long, stood bequeathed by Chiranji Lal in favour of defendant by way of Will rt dated 26.3.1996. According to defendant No.1 he was in possession of Khasra No. 3938 as its owner.
8. Defendant No.2 contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of suit property and issue involved in the suit was subject matter of Civil Suit No. 78 of 1996 titled Jagannath Vs. Tilak Raj etc., therefore, proceedings in the present suit be stayed. On merits the defence taken by defendant No.2 was that said defendant had succeeded along with others to the property of Charanji Lal and that he was in possession of the suit land.
9. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following issues were framed in the present case by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 213 of 1996 on 21.10.1997 as under:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed? OPP.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 8
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed U/S 10 CPC as alleged ? OPD.
4. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP.
5. Relief."
.
10. Learned Trial Court vide common judgment and decree dated 30.3.2006 partly decreed both the above suits in the following terms:
"Cumulative effect of aforesaid discussion and findings is that of plaintiff Jeet Singh succeeded in Civil Suit No. 156/96. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff Jeet Singh is decreed with cost. He is declared owner in possession of Khasra No. 3938 (new) Khasra No. 84/15/01 (old) land measuring 0-21-39 as comprised in khewat No. 222min, khatauni No. 365min situated in village rt Panjawar Tehsil and District Una on the basis of Will Ext. PW2/A. Mutation No. 255 stand set aside. Defendant Tilak Raj is restrained not to interfere in suit land in any manner. Similarly, suit filed by Tilak Raj bearing No. 213/96 is also partly decreed with cost. Defendant Jeet Singh and Jagan Nath are restrained not to interfere in Khasra No. 3481, 3482, 3716, 3721, khatauni No. 365 khewat No. 222. However, suit of the Tilak Raj regarding khasra No. 3938 stands dismissed. Decree-sheets in both the cases be separately. A signed copy of judgment be placed on record. Both the case file be consigned to record room."
11. Learned Trial Court thus declared Jeet Singh to be owner in possession of khasra No. 3938 (new) khasra No. 84/15/01 (old) land measuring 0-21-39 comprised in khewat No. 222min, khatauni No. 365min situated in village Panjawar Tehsil and District Una on the basis of Will Ext. PW2/A and it set aside mutation No. 255 and restrained defendant Tilak Raj from interfering in the suit land in any manner. Learned Trial Court also partly decreed the suit filed by Tilak Raj i.e. 213 of 1996 and restrained Jeet Singh and Jagan Nath ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 9 from interfering in khasra No. 3481, 3482, 3716, 3721 khatauni No. 365 khewat No. 222. It dismissed the suit of Tilak Raj qua Khasra .
No. 3938.
12. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by Learned Trial that Will executed in favour of Jeet Singh Ext. PW2/A demonstrated that the same was executed by its testator on account of of services which were rendered by plaintiff Jeet Singh and also defendant Tilak Raj. Learned trial court held that the Will revealed rt that plaintiff was cultivating the suit land and intention of testator could be gathered from the fact that he had only bequeathed suit land comprised in Khasra No. 3938 in favour of the plaintiff and remaining property stood bequeathed in favour of defendant Tilak Raj through Will Ext. PW2/A. Learned trial Court also held that Will Ext. PW2/A stood satisfactorily proved by plaintiff Jeet Singh. Learned Trial Court also held that though Charanji Lal had executed a gift in favour of defendant Tilak Raj but gift was with regard to different land and was not related to the suit land. Learned trial court also did not concur with the contention of defendant Tilak Raj in civil suit No. 156 of 1996 that the Will propounded by plaintiff Jeet Singh was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. It was further held by learned trial court that as far as Will executed in favour of defendant which was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 10 Ext. D1 was concerned, the original Will had not been produced in the Court and thus it could not be said that the execution and attestation of .
said Will was satisfactorily proved. Learned trial court also held that merely because the document was marked as exhibited document, the same did not dispense the factum of its being proved as per law.
Learned trial court also held that defendant had not satisfactorily of explained as to why the original Will was not produced at the time of examination of DW2 and therefore the only conclusion which could rt be arrived at was that propounder of Will dated 6.2.1996 had failed to prove legal and valid execution and attestation of Will in accordance with law. These findings were returned in the suit filed by Jeet Singh.
13. In the suit filed by Tilak Raj it was held by learned Trial Court that it had come on record that Jeet Singh (defendant No. 1 in the said suit) was in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 3938 and defendant No.2 had not proved his possession over the same, nor defendant No.2 had proved that the said land stood vested in him on the basis of succession and this demonstrated that possession of plaintiff Tilak Raj was proved over the suit land subject matter of said Civil Suit except khasra No. 3938. On these bases learned trial court held that plaintiff Tilak Raj was entitled for relief on the basis of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 11 possession qua suit land comprised in khasra No. 3481, 3482, 3716, 3721 except Khasra No. 3938.
.
14. The judgment and decree so passed by learned trial court were challenged by way of three appeals before the learned Appellate Court. Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2006 was filed by Tilak Raj in civil suit No. 156 of 1996, Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2006 was filed by Tilak Raj of in civil suit No. 213 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2006 was filed by Jagan Nath in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 as well as Civil Suit rt No. 213 of 1996.
15. Learned appellate court vide common judgment and decree passed in the said three appeals dated 313.2008 partly allowed civil appeals No. 34 of 2006 and 35 of 2006 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court vide which learned trial court had upheld Will dated 26.3.1996 Ext. PW2/A.
16. Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 was partly decreed by learned appellate court in the following terms:-
"The suit land comprised in khasra No. 3938 is owned by defendant Tilak Raj and possessed by plaintiff Jeet Singh. Defendant Tilak Raj is restrained from interfering with plaintiff Jeet Singh's possession over the suit land or changing the nature thereof till he (Jeet Singh) is dispossessed therefrom in due course of law.
The remaining part of the suit was dismissed"
17. Civil Suit No. 213 of 1996 was also decreed by learned appellate court in the following terms:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 12"Plaintiff Tilak Raj is owner of the disputed land comprised in khasra Nos. 3481, 3482, 3716, 3721 and 3938, and in possession of part thereof (Khasra Nos. 3481, 3482, 3716 and 3721). The defendants Jeet Singh and Jagan Nath are permanently restrained from interfering with the said part of the disputed land and .
changing the nature thereof by raising construction. The latter two are also permanently restrained from cutting and removing the trees standing on the disputed land.
The remaining part of the suit was dismissed."
18. As far as appeal filed by Jagan Nath is concerned, the of same was dismissed by learned appellate court.
19. Against the judgments and decrees so passed by learned trial court, present four appeals have been filed.
rt
20. RSA No. 242 of 2008 has been filed by Jeet Singh feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court in Appeal No. 34 of 2006 arising out of civil suit No. 156 of 1996.
21. RSA No. 243 of 2008 has been filed by appellant Jeet Singh feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court in Appeal No. 35 of 2006 arising out of civil suit No. 213 of 1996.
22. RSA No. 307 of 2008 has been filed by Tilak Raj feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court in Appeal No. 34 of 2006 arising out of civil suit No. 156 of 1996.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 1323. RSA No. 306 of 2008 has been filed by appellant Tilak Raj feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned .
appellate court in Appeal No. 35 of 2006 arising out of civil suit No. 213 of 1996.
24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments and of decrees passed by the learned Courts below.
25. I will first deal with both the RSAs which have been filed rt by Jeet Singh i.e. RSA No. 242 of 2008 and RSA No. 243 of 2008.
26. The substantial questions of law on which these RSAs were respectively admitted are as under:-
RSA No. 242 of 2008"1. Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court are legally sustainable that the deceased executed a Will in favour of Tilak Raj without there being any evidence and proof of the execution of the alleged Will and mere exhibit put on the photocopy of the Will held to have validly executed the Will?
2. Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court in ignoring the document Ex.PW-2/A, the Will, which has been duly proved to have been validly executed, are not sustainable in the eyes of law?
3. Whether the copy of the Will Ex. D-1 the alleged Will meets the requirement of law and its due and valid execution, by not producing the original Will nor examining any marginal witness of the Will."RSA No. 243 of 2008
"1. Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court are legally sustainable that the deceased executed a Will in favour of Tilak Raj without there being any evidence and proof of the execution of the alleged Will and mere exhibit put on the photocopy of the Will held to have validly executed the Will?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 14
2. Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court in ignoring the document Ex.PW-2/A, the Will, which has been duly proved to have been validly executed, are not sustainable in the eyes of law?
3. Whether the copy of the Will Ex. D-1 the alleged Will meets the .
requirement of law and its due and valid execution, by not producing the original Will nor examining any marginal witness of the Will."
27. In these cases there are two Wills one Ext. PW2/A propounded by Chiranji Lal in favour of the plaintiff as well as Tilak of Raj dated 26.3.1996 and other is Ext D1 propounded by testator Chiranji Lal dated 6.2.1996 exclusively in favour of Tilak Raj. While rt learned trial court upheld the Will executed by Chiranji Lal in favour of Jeet Singh and Tilak Raj Ext. PW2/A it held that Will executed by Chiranji Lal in favour of Tilak Raj was no Will in the eyes of law as the original of the said Will had not seen light of the day. Learned appellate court while upsetting the findings so returned by learned trial court upheld Will executed by Chiranji Lal in favour of Tilak Raj i.e. Ext. D1 by holding that DW3 had stated in the Court that he had seen the original when photocopy of the same was exhibited as DW1 and it further held that the Will propounded by Jeet Singh i.e. Ext.
PW2/A was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and was not a valid Will executed in favour of Jeet Singh and Tilak Raj.
28. Therefore, primarily the question which has to be answered by this Court is as to whether the findings returned to this ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 15 effect by learned appellate court are borne out from the records of the case or the same are perverse finding.
.
29. Taking into consideration the fact that both Wills executed by Chiranji Lal, therefore, I shall first deal with the Will later in time i.e. Ext. PW2/A propounded by Jeet Singh and purportedly executed by Chiranji Lal both in favour of Jeet Singh and of Tilak Raj.
30. Mr. N.K. Thakur learned Senior Counsel appearing for rt appellant Jeet Singh has vehemently argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate court whereby learned appellate court concluded that learned trial court had wrongly upheld Will dated 26.3.1996 Ext. PW2/A propounded by Jeet Singh and it upheld the Will propounded by Tilak Raj are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued by Mr. Thakur that besides the factum of original Will Ext. D2 having not seen the light of the day as was held by learned trial court, propounder Jeet Singh had proved Will dated 26.3.1996 as per law and learned appellate court had set aside the findings returned in this regard by learned trial court by totally misreading and mis-
appreciating the evidence on record. According to Mr. Thakur execution of Will Ext. PW2/A stood proved by the testimony of Anil Jaswal the scribe of the Will who deposed in the Court as PW2 as well ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 16 as from the testimony of Kartar Chand as PW3 who was an attesting witness along with Harvilas PW-4. Mr. Thakur further argued that .
vide Will Ext. PW2/A, executant had bequeathed khasra number 3938 measuring 0-21-39 hectares situated in Panjawar village Tehsil and Distt. Una in favour of Jeet Singh out of love and affection and in fact the remaining property had been bequeathed by him in favour of of defendant Tilak Raj. Mr. Thakur further argued that the factum of Jeet Singh being in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 3938 rt in fact stood proved not only from the evidence placed on record by Jeet Singh but also from the statements of the defendant witnesses.
According to Mr. Thakur learned appellate court erred in not appreciating that Will Ext. PW2/A was the last Will executed by Chiranji Lal and the said Will had been executed by him out of his free will and volition without any coercion or pressure and the same was not shrouded with any suspicious circumstance. Mr. Thakur further argued that learned appellate court had also erred in upholding Will Ext. D-1 and the findings returned by learned appellate court to the effect that original Will was produced at the time of the examination of the scribe of the Will are perverse because original Will was never produced before the learned trial court.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 1731. On the other hand Mr. R.K. Gautam learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Tilak Raj argued that the findings .
returned by learned appellate court to the effect that Will Ext. PW2/A was not executed by Charanji Lal were correct findings based on the appreciation of evidence on record and the same did not call for any interference. It was argued by Mr. Gautam that there were lot of of variations in the statements of plaintiff witnesses i.e. scribe and attesting witnesses and further Charanji Lal was not neither mentally rt nor physically fit to have had executed Will on 26.3.1996. Mr. Gautam further argued that the findings returned by learned appellate court to the effect that Ext. D1 was a duly executed last Will of Charanji Lal also did not warrant any interference and on these bases it was urged by Mr. Gautam that there was no merit in the appeals filed by Jeet Singh and the same be dismissed.
32. A perusal of Will dated 26.3.1996 Ext. PW2/A demonstrates that this Will was scribed by Anil Jaswal and attesting witnesses to the same were Kartar Chand and Harvilas. A perusal of the said exhibit also demonstrates that executant Chiranji Lal had mentioned therein that he was satisfied with the services which were being rendered to him by Jeet Singh and Tilak Raj and in lieu of the same he was bequeathing his property as detailed in the said Will.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 18Incidentally it is not as if he had bequeathed his entire property in favour of Jeet Singh. Part of the property has been bequeathed in .
favour of Jeet Singh whereas remaining property has been bequeathed in favour of Tilak Raj.
33. Scribe of Will Ext. PW2/A Anil Jaswal entered the witness box as PW2 and deposed that the said Will was scribed by of him and he had scribed the same as per the desire of its executant Charanji Lal at his residence which was in favour of Tilak Raj and rt Jeet Singh. This witness further deposed that he was taken to the house of Chiranji Lal by Kartar Singh S/o Rikhi Ram. He further deposed that at the time when the said Will was scribed, Charanji Lal was in his senses and he had bequeathed 05 kanal 11 marlas of land in favour of Jeet Singh, whereas the remaining land and bank balance etc. were bequeathed in favour of Tilak Raj. He further deposed that Will was scribed as stated by Chiranji Lal. He further stated that after the Will was scribed he read over the same to Charanji Lal who after acknowledging the contents of the same appended his signature on it which were in Urdu. He further deposed that thereafter Kartar Chand appended his thumb impression and Harvilas appended his signature as witnesses.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 1934. In his cross examination PW2 Anil Jaswal stated that Charanji Lal was ill and besides the marginal witnesses there were .
two other persons present whose names he was not aware of. In his cross examination he also denied the suggestion that he had not scribed the Will as was dictated by Chiranji Lal. It is necessary to mention this fact in view of the stand taken by defendant Tilak Raj in of his written statement as per which Charanji Lal had not executed any Will dated 26.3.1996 and the Will was forged and a fraudulent Will.
rt In other words the stand of defendant was not that though there may be a Will executed by Charanji Lal in favour of Jeet Singh but the same was a result of coercion and undue influence, the unambiguous stand taken in the written statement that Charanji Lal had not executed any Will in favour of Jeet Singh and the Will propounded by Jeet Singh was a forged Will.
35. Besides Anil Jaswal both the marginal witnesses of Ext.
PW2/A namely Kartar Chand and Harvilas also deposed in the Court as PW3 and PW4 respectively. PW3 Kartar Chand stated in the Court that he knew plaintiff as well as defendant and he knew Charanji Lal also, the executant of the Will. This witness further deposed that Charanji Lal was a bachelor and as such he was not having any offspring. He also deposed that Jeet Singh used to look after Charanji ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 20 Lal and he used to attend Charanji Lal when he was ill and also used to bear medical expenses of Charanji Lal. He further deposed that suit .
land was being cultivated by Jeet Singh for the last 40 years. This witness further deposed that on 26th of March Charanji Lal told him that he wanted to execute a Will and thereafter Charanji Lal asked him to bring a scribe for the said purpose. This witness also stated that at of the time when the Will was executed Charanji Lal was in his senses.
He further stated that he came to Una from where he took Anil Jaswal.
rt He further stated that he also called Harvilas as was instructed by Chiranji Lal and around 3:00 p.m., Will was scribed by Jeet Singh as dictated by Charanji Lal who desired that 05 kanal 11 marla land be bequeathed in favour of Jeet Singh and remaining movable and immovable property be bequeathed in favour of Tilak Raj. He also deposed that after the Will was scribed, the same was read over to Charanji Lal and he appended his signatures upon the same after acknowledging the contents thereof and thereafter he (PW-3) appended his thumb impression over the same, whereas Harvilas appended his signatures. In his cross-examination PW3 deposed that at the time when the Will was executed by Chiranji Lal both Tilak Raj and Jagan Nath were present there. He also stated that Jagan Nath and Tilak Raj did not sign the Will. This witness in his cross-examination ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 21 also stated that Chiranji Lal died in the morning of 27.3.1996. He further deposed that on 26.3.1996 no doctor was called for though he .
(PW-3) had brought some medicine from local doctor who was a retired Army personnel. He also stated that Charanji Lal had given up food 5-6 days before his death and he only used to consume bread and juice. He denied the suggestion that Will in fact was a forged one and of had been prepared after the death of Chiranji Lal.
36. The other marginal witnesses Harvilas entered the rt witness box as PW4 and deposed about the mode and manner in which the Will was executed and that he had appended his signatures upon the same as a marginal witnesses. In his cross-examination this witness stated that he was called by Kartar Chand. He also stated that Tilak Raj and Jagan Nath were present at the time when the Will was executed. In his cross-examination he also stated that Chiranji Lal was ill 4-5 days before his death. He also stated in his cross-
examination that the suit land was cultivated by Jeet Singh from the last 40 years. This witness also deposed that Charanji Lal had himself told him that his condition was deteriorating. He denied the suggestion that the Will was forged after the death of Charanji Lal.
37. One Sh. Jai Gopal also entered the witness Box as PW5 and this witness deposed that he was aware of the suit land and the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 22 same was being cultivated by Jeet Singh since 1965 and the owner of the same was Charanji Lal and that Charanji Lal who was issueless .
had told him that he had given his land to Jeet Singh who was looking after him. In his cross examination this witness stated that Jeet Singh was not related to Charanji Lal whereas Tilak Raj was grandson of Charanji Lal. He denied the suggestion that there was any dispute of between him and defendant as he had cut grass from the land of defendant.
38. rt Now a perusal of the statements of the scribe of the Will as well as the marginal witnesses clearly demonstrates that there is consistency in their statements as far as execution of the will by Charanji Lal is concerned. Scribe has categorically stated that he was called for by Kartar Chand who took him to the house of Charanji Lal and that the Will was scribed as per the wish of Charanji Lal and after the Will was scribed the same was read over to Charanji Lal who after understanding the same appended his signature over the same. This witness has categorically stated that thereafter marginal witnesses appended their signatures upon the same. Both the marginal witnesses have also deposed in the court about the mode and manner in which the Will was executed. Scribe as well as both the marginal witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination, however the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 23 credibility of these witnesses could not be impeached by the defendant. Incidentally both the marginal witnesses have stated in .
unison that defendant Tilak Raj and Jagan Nath were present at the time when the Will was scribed and presence of two persons whose names were not known to him has also been mentioned in his statement by the scribe of the Will. Now in this background when one of peruses the findings returned by learned appellate court with regard to the execution of the said Will, the only conclusion which can be rt arrived at is that learned appellate court has disbelieved the execution of the said Will on conjectures and surmises by totally misreading and mis-appreciating the evidence which was on record. Learned appellate court failed to appreciate that the case put forth by defendant was that the Will in issue was a forged one and the onus to prove the same was on the defendant who miserably failed to prove the same.
Incidentally witnesses to Will Ext. PW2/A though have stated that the executor of the Will was in his disposing stand of mind executed the Will but they have not concealed this fact from the Court that Charanji Lal was keeping ill health at the time when the Will was executed.
Simply because Charanji Lal died a day or thereafter after execution of the Will dated 26.3.1996 will not shroud the same with suspicious circumstances especially when the propounder of the Will Jeet Singh ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 24 has been able to discharge the initial onus about the Will having been executed in accordance with law.
.
39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana and others Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67 has held that though the initial onus to prove the 'Will' is on the propounder of the 'Will' but thereafter it shifts to the of party alleging undue influence or coercion in execution of the 'Will'.
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs rt Vs. Vinod Kumar and others (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 387, has recapitulated the said legal position and relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted herein below:-
28. In one of the earliest judgments in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma , the three Judge Bench noticed the provisions of Sections 45, 47, 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Sections 59 and 63 of the 1925 Act and observed:
(AIR pp. 451-52, paras 18-21) "18. ........... Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions.
Has the testator signed the will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 25 the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with .
mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.
19. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a court, the testator who has already departed the world of cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof rt of wills the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.
20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature, in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 26 be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally .
tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the of will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
rt 21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred, in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word "conscience" in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive." (emphasis supplied)
29. The ratio of H. Venkatachala Iyengar's case was relied upon or referred to in Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb , Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, Surendra Pal v. Saraswati Arora, Seth Beni Chand v.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 27Kamla Kunwar, Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty, Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and S. R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma .
30. In Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur the Court analysed the ratio .
in H. Venkatachala Iyengar case and culled out the following propositions: (Jaswant Kaur case, SCC pp. 373-74, para 10) "1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.
of
2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting rt witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.
3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 28 excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate .
suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to of decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.
rt 6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter."
41. In my considered view in the present case the appellant has not brought any material on record from where it could establish that 'Will' Ext. DW2/A was not a valid 'Will' but was a result of either fraud or misrepresentation of undue influence exercised by the propounder of the 'Will' on its testator.
42. Because it was the case of defendant that the said Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances as per whom, the Will in fact was a fraud Will and was a forged Will, the onus was upon the defendant Tilak Raj to have had proved that Charanji Lal had not executed any Will on 26.3.1996 and Will i.e. Ext. PW2/A was in fact ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 29 forged and fabricated after the death of Charanji Lal. However, there is no evidence to this effect placed on record by said defendant.
.
Learned appellate court has not only erred in not appreciating the statements of PW2, PW3 and PW4 in their correct perspective but it has also erred in not appreciating the findings returned by learned trial court qua Will Ext. PW2/A correctly. In fact a perusal of judgment of passed by learned appellate court demonstrates that learned appellate court has tried to create suspicious circumstance to demolish Will Ext.
rt PW2/A where none existed. To illustrate this, learned appellate court has held that PW3 Kartar Chand and PW4 Harvilas were brother and cousin of the propounder of the Will Jeet Singh and it has drawn adverse inference of the fact that as to why only PW3 and PW4 were chosen by testator as witnesses without appreciating that the scribe of the Will has categorically demonstrated in his deposition that the Will was executed as per the desire of the testator and there is no record that Jeet Singh played any role in execution of Will. Further this aspect of the matter has also been totally ignored by learned appellate court that it stands proved on record from the statements of PW2 to PW4 that defendant Tilak Raj as well as Jagan Nath were present at the time when the said Will was executed and there is no cross-
examination of witnesses on this count that defendant Tilak Raj was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 30 not present at the time when Will Ext. PW2/A was executed.
Similarly, learned appellate court has tried to create suspicious .
circumstance on the ground that there was discrepancy with regard to the date on which Chiranji Lal was died, as to whether he died on 27.3.1996 or 28.3.1996. Learned appellate court also held that the factum of Jeet Singh first stating that Chiranji Lal was died on of 26.3.1996 and then stating that he died on 28.3.1996 was also shrouded with suspicious circumstance. In my considered view, while rt returning the said findings learned appellate court erred in not appreciating that it was not even the case of Tilak Raj that Chiranji Lal had died on 26.3.1996. There is infirmity in the findings so returned by learned appellate court as the said findings are contrary to the pleadings, as learned appellate court has erred in not appreciating that there is difference between a forged Will and a Will though executed by a testator but one which is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. Further learned appellate court has also erred in treating the physical condition of Chiranji Lal to be a suspicious circumstance without appreciating that PW2, PW3 and PW4 had in unison deposed that the Will was in fact executed on the asking/instruction of its testator as per his free will and volition and all these three witnesses have also deposed that when the said Will was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 31 executed, the testator was physically unwell. On the contrary no evidence was produced by defendant to demonstrate that on 26.3.1996 .
Chiranji Lal was mentally disabled and was not in a position to execute any Will. Moreover, learned appellate court has also erred in not appreciating that the contents of said Will otherwise are equitable, as testator had bequeathed part of his property in favour of Jeet Singh of whereas remaining property was bequeathed in favour of Tilak Raj.
43. The finding returned by learned appellate court to the rt effect that the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstance stood proved on record from the fact that at the time of attestation or mutation dated 26.3.1996 said Will was not produced before Tehsildar by Jeet Singh and rather he took the plea of non occupancy tenancy at the time of attestation of the said mutation is also a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of the findings on record. While returning the said findings, learned appellate court erred in not appreciating that the land qua which said mutation was attested on the basis of gift deed executed by Chiranji Lal in favour of Tilak Raj was not subject matter of Will Ext. PW2/A. The above findings clearly and categorically demonstrate that learned appellate court has in fact erred in not appreciating the statements of PW2 to PW4 in their ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 32 correct perspective and has erred in adopting a pick and choose method to find infirmities in their statements where none existed.
.
44. Now I will refer to the validity of Will Ext. D-1.
45. Learned trial court has disbelieved Will Ext. D-1 by holding that propounder of the said Will had failed to prove the same, as the original of said Will was not produced before the Court.
of Learned trial court held that DW2 who was the witness to the said Will was not shown the original to him at the time of his examination rt in the Court nor this witness had stated after actually perusing the original Will that any such Will was executed and attested in his presence and that he had seen testator putting his signature over the Will in his presence. Learned trial court further held that scribe of the Will, i.e. DW3 had tendered photocopy of Will which was Ext. D-1 and this was in fact objected to. On these bases it was held by learned trial court that mere mentioning of a document did not dispense with the proof of the same. It also held that Tilak Raj had failed to prove that any Will i.e. Ext. D1 was in fact executed by Chiranji Lal.
Learned trial court also held that if a party does not produce a document on record then adverse inference has to be drawn against it and it further held that there was no cogent explanation by the defendant as to why original Will was not produced by him. On these ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 33 basis learned trial court held that Tilak Raj propounder of the Will has failed to prove legal and valid execution of the Will.
.
46. Learned appellate court however set aside the finings so returned by learned trial court by, inter alia, holding that original Will dated 6.2.1996 photocopy of which was Ext. D-1 was in fact produced at the time by the scribe thereof i.e. DW3 on 13.1.2003.
of
47. Records demonstrate that Ashok Kumar tendered his affidavit by way of evidence in which it was mentioned that he was rt working in the Court as a Document Writer and he had brought the relevant records and that at Sr. No. 37 against date 6.2.1996, a Will executed by Chiranji Lal s/o Kansi Ram was entered. It was further mentioned in his affidavit that the said Will was scribed at the house of Chiranji Lal and the same was read over to the testator who after understanding the same appended his signatures on it in front of witnesses.
48. In Court this witness while tendering his affidavit by way of evidence has deposed "Asal Vasiat Dekh Le Hai Jo Meri Kalmi Hai Jis Bara Indraj Mere Register Sr. No. 37 dated 6.2.1996 Page No. 23 Par Daraj Hai. Iski Photocopy Ex. D-1 Mutabak Asal Darust Hai (Objected to)."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 3449. Now the inference which has been drawn from the said statement of Ashok Kumar by learned appellate court is that the .
original Will was produced at the time when Ashok Kumar was examined as DW3 on 13.1.2003. However, the finding so returned by learned appellate court is not borne out from the records. It has not come in the statement of DW-3 that he was shown the original Will in of the Court itself and that Ext. D-1 was in fact a photocopy of the original Will. Obviously that is why when photocopy of Will was rt exhibited as D-1, the same was objected to by the plaintiff.
50. Further it is a matter of record that DW2 Parmod Singh marginal witness to the said alleged Will was never shown the original. This witness deposed in the Court on 14.6.2002.
51. Besides this a perusal of Ext. D-1 which is a photocopy also demonstrates that there is no endorsement on the same to the effect that the same was a photocopy of original Will dated 6.2.1996 and the same was taken on record after comparing it with the original Will. During the course of arguments no cogent explanation was given by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Tilak Raj as to why the original Will was not produced in the Court and in whose possession the said Will was. Therefore, in these circumstances in my considered view learned appellate court has gravely erred in holding that Ext. D-1 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 35 was a validly executed Will by Chiranji Lal in favour of propounder Tilak Raj. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
.
RSA No. 306 of 2008 & RSA No. 307 of 2008.
52. These two appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law and I will deal with these substantial questions of law together.
of RSA No. 306 of 2008 "Whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court holding that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 3938 khewat No. 222min Khatauni No. 365min measuring 0-21-39 Hect. in the suit land is rt in possession of the respondent inspite of the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside by the lower Appellate and the Will set up by the respondent in the suit which was held valid by the trial Court has been held invalid by the lower appellate Court and as such, the findings of the lower appellate Court to this extent are perverse to the evidence on record?"
RSA No. 307 of 2008"Whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court holding that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 3938 khewat No. 222min Khatauni No. 365min measuring 0-21-39 Hect. in the suit land is in possession of the respondent inspite of the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside by the lower Appellate and the Will set up by the respondent in the suit which was held valid by the trial Court has been held invalid by the lower appellate Court and as such, the findings of the lower appellate Court to this extent are perverse to the evidence on record?"
53. It was held by learned appellate court that the findings returned by learned trial court qua the possession of Jeet Singh over khasra No. 3938 were correct as in his cross examination as PW1 in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 Jeet Singh was suggested by Tilak Raj that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 36 only Jeet Singh cultivated the suit land and the said suggestion was admitted to be correct by Jeet Singh. Learned appellate court further .
held that in Civil Suit No. 213 of 1996 Tilak Raj suggested to defendant Jagan Nath that some part of Chiranji Lal's land was cultivated by Jeet Singh and Jeet Singh had sown potatoes in 5 kanal 11 marlas of land comprised in khasra No. 3938. On these bases it of was held by learned appellate court that in fact Tilak Raj in his own showing lent credence to the effect that Jeet Singh was in possession rt of land comprised in khasra No. 3938. On these bases learned appellate court returned the findings that Jeet Singh in fact was in possession of khasra No. 3938. In my considered view as this Court has already held that Will Ext. PW2/A was validly executed by Chiranji Lal in favour of Jeet Singh as well as Tilak Raj vide which land comprised in khasra No. 3938 stood bequeathed to Jeet Singh, nothing more is required to be said on this issue save and except that it not only stands proved on record that Jeet Singh is in possession of khasra No. 3938 but it also stands proved on record that he is in possession of the same in his capacity as has been rightly held by learned trial court that Jeet Singh was in possession of khasra No. 3938 in his capacity as its owner. These substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP 37In view of my findings returned above, Regular Second Appeal No. 242 of 2008 and Regular Second Appeal No. 243 of 2008 .
are allowed whereas Regular Second Appeal No. 306 of 2008 and Regular Second Appeal No. 307 of 2008 are dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal Nos. 34 of 2006 and 35 of 2006 are also set aside and the judgment and decree of passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, Una in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1996 are upheld. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous rt applications if any also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 22nd March, 2017.
(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:03:16 :::HCHP