Chodhra Singh v. Bhola Singh & ORS

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.04 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6173-2017 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA-6173-2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.12.2018 Chodhra Singh ... Appellant

Versus

Bhola Singh and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J.

CM-16093-C-2017 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 11 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

RSA-6173-2017 The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming the declaration of having acquired the ownership to the extent of 1/5th share, out of the share of Gandhi Singh, from the total land holdings measuring 74 kanals 8 marals, by laying challenge to the registered Will dated 23.05.2006, whereby the aforementioned property had been bequeathed in favour of the defendants, brothers and sons of Gandhi Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that DW-1 Jagan Singh admitted that one of the defendants, son of Gandhi

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.04 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6173-2017 (O&M) Singh, had paid the charges to the scribe and other two sons, had taken him to the Tehsil, thus, the Will was surrounded by the suspicious circumstances and was liable to be discarded as devolution of the property should have been by way of natural succession.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no merit and force in the submissions of Mr. Singla, for, both the attesting witnesses, much less, scribe, have proved the execution of the Will, much less, the fact that testator had himself appended the signatures/thumb-impressions on the Will. Nothing contrary to the testimony has come forward. The payment of charges to the Scribe would not mean participation. Had the beneficiaries taken the testator and participated, there would have been a force and merit in the submissions. The registered document carries presumption of truth until and unless strong and cogent evidence is led. In such circumstances, the Courts below have no occasion, but to dismiss the suit.

In this view of the matter, there cannot be any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. 11.12.