Jarnail Singh v. Tarsem Singh & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.18.05.2018 Jarnail Singh ......Appellant Vs Tarsem Singh and others .....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) C.M. No.10974-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 42 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

C.M. No.10975-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

RSA No.4251 of 2016 The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit claiming declaration that the plaintiff with defendant No.1 to 6 are in possession of the suit property with regard to the estate of Bachan Singh, father has been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Mr. Chandail, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that Bachan Singh was owner of the land in dispute. However, on his demise, the property was devolved by way of natural succession upon all the siblings but the defendants got

-2mutation effected in their names by propounding a Will dated 14.07.2005. One attesting witness, DW2 Avtar Singh and scribe DW3 had been examined but the scribe did not give convincing reply to the specific question in cross-examination with regard to maintaining of the register. That itself was suspicious circumstance, which has been discarded by the Courts below, therefore, there is gross illegality and perversity. Once the Will has not been proved, irresistible conclusion was liable to be drawn that the property of Bachan Singh should have been devolved upon the legal heirs by way of natural succession, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the finding under challenge.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Chandail. The Will aforementioned is registered document, which has been proved through the testimony of DW2 Avtar Singh attesting witness and DW3 Gurdeep Singh, scribe. One line here and there regarding maintaining the register cannot be taken against the propounder of the Will. The Will was executed in the year 2005 whereas the suit was filed in the year 2011 and the testimony was recorded much later on. Over a period of time, it is natural corollary that a person would not remember the actual fact. The appellant has not been able to belie the signature/thumb impression of Bachan Singh on the Will as no expert had been examined, therefore, the adverse inference was rightly drawn. In view of the aforementioned, the argument of Mr. Chandail has not been able to cut ice to enable this Court to form a

-3different opinion than the one already arrived at, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The second appeal is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 18, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No