Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Chand Malhotra (Dead) Through L.Rs vs P.L. Malhotra (Dead) Through L.Rs on 20 July, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 390 of 1986
Date of decision: July 20, 2012
Lal Chand Malhotra (dead) through L.Rs.
.. Appellants
Vs.
P.L. Malhotra (dead) through L.Rs.
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None. A.N. Jindal, J
This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 7.4.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the petition of probate filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act by Lal Chand Malhotra was dismissed. There was a serious contest between the parties. The trial court, vide order dated 16.11.1981, framed the following issues :
1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner has no locus stnadi?
3. Whether the proceedings in this petition are liable to be stayed in view of the pendency of partition suit in Delhi High Court?
4. Whether the deceased executed the Will dt: 10.9.1977?
5. If issue No.4 is found in affirmative whether the Will is a forged document or signatures of the testator were obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence? If so, its effect?
6. What is the value of the assets left by the deceased in favour of the petitioner?
Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial court decided issues No.1 to 3 against the respondents. Issue No.4 was decided against the petitioner and it was observed that the petitioner had failed to prove the execution of the Will in F.A.O. No. 390 of 1986 -2- question and the said Will was shrouded with suspicion and was not the result of free will and consent of the testator. Consequently, issue No.5 was also decided against the petitioner. While deciding issue No.6, the court held that net value of the assets left by Chuni Lal was Rs.4,55,277/-.
The impugned judgment appears to be on correct appreciation of evidence. No such illegality much less irregularity was pointed out in the findings of fact returned by the courts below.
No substantial question of law arises for determination in this case.
No merits.
Dismissed.
July 20, 2012 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge