Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taranjit Kaur vs Harpinder Kaur & Ors on 13 January, 2016
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.199 of 2016 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.199 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision.13.01.2016
Taranjit Kaur .......Petitioner
Vs.
Harpinder Kaur and others ........Respondents
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Manrai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
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?
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The revision petition is at the instance of the defendant who is aggrieved that the plaintiff is overdoing her brief by seeking for summoning of persons who could give no evidence for proving assertions which the plaintiff was making and for attempt to disprove the Will which the defendant has already relied on. The counsel states that even issues have been wrongly cast. I notice the issues to be wrongly cast in the sense that the person who is saying that the Will is not true and only a forgery would not take the burden of proof that the Will is forgery. On the other hand, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act casts burden of proof at all times on the person who propounds the Will and therefore, the appropriate issue will be as under:-
"Whether the Will said to have been executed by Ranjit Singh is true and valid?
Whether the Will executed by the mother Jaswinder Kaur is PANKAJ KUMAR true and valid?"2016.01.15 12:01
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No.199 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
2. The burden of proof of both these issues shall be on the defendant. The rebuttal must, therefore, relate to rebutting the evidence already adduced by the defendant that the Wills were genuine and attestation had been made in the manner known to law.
3. The Court will eschew the issue already framed casting the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish that the Will was a forgery. The Court will also mind the fact that the evidence that is brought before the Court in rebuttal has a bearing only to examination of witnesses whose evidence will have a bearing on the issues and the plaintiff does not engage in needless production of evidence which has no bearing at all to the Wills. The counsel wants to make an argument that the plaintiff has filed an application for summoning witnesses and she should be granted an opportunity to state her objection whether these witnesses would require to be summoned or not. This objection may be taken by the petitioner- defendant before the Court which is issuing summons and it cannot be brought before me to apply my mind on the same.
4. While declining to interfere with the order already passed to allow for rebuttal evidence to be given by the plaintiff, the Court will hear the objections on the relevance of the particular witnesses who are sought to be summoned and to mind the fact of whether any of the witnesses will have anything to say about the mental capacity or the truth or validity of the execution or attestation of either Ranjit Singh or Jaswinder Kaur. The revision petition is disposed of with the above observations.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 13, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.15 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document