Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Kaur And Others vs Babliro Bibi And Others on 5 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No.899 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(116)
CR No.899 of 2014
Date of decision:05.02.2014
Ajmer Kaur and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Babliro Bibi and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure P-5).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court had initially correctly framed issue No.3. However, on an application moved by the plaintiff, issues had been reframed and onus had been wrongly shifted on the petitioners to prove the Will dated 08.01.1986.
In the present case, Kartar Kaur alias Kartaro has filed suit for joint possession on the ground that the Will dated 08.01.1986 allegedly executed by Dulla Singh in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Channa Singh was illegal, null and void and against Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.11 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.899 of 2014 -2- the provisions of Mohammedan Law and had no bearing on the rights of the plaintiff.
Initially, issue No.3 was framed as under:-
"Whether will dated 8.1.1986 alleged to be executed by Dulla Singh is illegal, null and void? OPP"
Thereafter, an application was moved by the plaintiff for reframing of the issues on the ground that the Will dated 08.01.1986 had been propounded by the defendants and therefore, its execution was to be proved by the defendants. The trial court filed the impugned order reframed issue No.3 as under:-
"Whether Dulla Singh executed Will dated 8.1.1986 in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 and Channa Singh, if so, its effect?OPD"
Since in the present case, the Will in question has been set up by defendants No.1 to 3, the execution of the Will is liable to be proved by the defendants. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has not committed any error by reframing issue No.3.
Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 05, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.11 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document