Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Lal vs Ratti Ram And Ors on 5 September, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
R.S.A.No.839 of 2011(O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No.839 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: 5.9.2014
Krishan Lal
---Appellant
versus
Ratti Ram and others
---Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Present: Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate
for the appellant
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala City dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2008 passed by the trial court whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed.
Rati Ram and Kodi alias Mukhtayri, brother and sister respectively of deceased Ram Sarup filed suit for declaration that Will dated 1.5.1997 alleged to be executed by Ram Sarup in regard to his estate in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 is forged, illegal, null and void and does not affect right of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 thus, liable to be R.S.A.No.839 of 2011(O&M) -2- ignored and mutation No. 1052 village Singpura, No. 1442 of village Gajipur and No. 1266 of village Gani Khera on the basis of Will dated 1.5.1997 are liable to be set aside.
Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed the written statement claiming their right to inherit to the estate of the deceased on the basis of testamentary succession vide Will dated 1.5.1997 with the plea that Ram Sarup died issueless, his last rites were performed by the answering defendants. Ram Sarup was very happy with the services rendered by the answering defendants and due to natural love and affection, he executed Will dated 1.5.1997 which is valid and genuine and binding upon the plaintiffs.
The learned trial Court, in view of evidence adduced by the contesting defendants, propounders of the Will held that the defendants have failed to substantiate their plea that the Will set up by them is genuine and valid wish of the deceased to bequeath his entire moveable and immoveable property in favour of the defendants and as a result it has been held that the estate left behind by the deceased would be inherited by the parties on the basis of natural succession and accordingly the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. The appeal preferred by Krishan Lal appellant was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9.11.2010.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the reasons which weighed in the mind of the courts below for discarding the Will are unfounded and liable to be set aside and the Will set up by the defendants- appellant is liable to be accepted.
R.S.A.No.839 of 2011(O&M) -3-
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Indisputably, the original Will stated to be executed by the deceased has not seen the light of day in the proceedings as the same was said to be lost from the records produced for the purpose of sanction of mutation. None of the attesting witnesses of the Will has been examined to prove the Will in compliance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial court rightly noticed that the written statement filed by the defendants does not make reference to the person who scribed the Will in dispute. However, during course of evidence, the defendants examined the purported scribe of the Will whose testimony was found to be untruthful and not worthy of credence and reliance in view of facts elicited during his cross examination. I do not find any error much less illegality in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in discarding the Will. Counsel for the appellant has failed to convince that any substantial question of law arises for consideration as has been sought to be raised in para 11 of the grounds of appeal.
For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE 5.9.2014 PARAMJIT