Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 943 (PNJ)

Lakha Singh v. Jarnail Singh

2006-03-06

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. He has lost before the learned first appellate Court. He filed a suit for possession on december 22,1999 claiming that Sajjan Singh was the original owner of the suit land and after his death the land in question devolved upon kesar kaur. The plaintiff claimed that he had rendered services to Kesar kaur and in lieu thereto Kesar Kaur was executed a registered will dated december 19,1984 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership and possession over the suit property on the basis of the said will. 2. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that Jangir kaur,defendant ( since dead) was claiming the suit property and a mutation had been sanctioned on November 17,1995 in her favour and on the basis of the aforesaid mutation she had taken the forcible possession of the suit land. Consequently, the suit in question was filed. The defendant Jangir Kaur, contested the suit. She claimed that she is real sister of Sajjan Singh. She further stated that plaintiff was not, in any manner, connected with the family of Sajjan Singh. She also denied that any will had been executed by Kesar Kaur in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The said will was claimed to be forged and fictitious. During the course of the suit one Buta Singh moved an r. S. A. No.2779 of 2004 2 application claiming that he had purchased the suit property from jangir kaur on November 24,1995 and was in actual possession of the suit property. He claimed that he had stepped into the shoes of Jangir kaur. He was allowed to be impleaded as party-defendant. 4. The learned trial Court held that the will Ex. P1 was shown to have been executed by Kesar Kaur in favour of the plaintiff. It rejected the testimony of DW1 Dr. Inderjit Singh,handwriting expert who had opined that the thumb impression on the will was not of Kesar Kaur. It also held that Buta Singh was not a bonafide purchaser of the suit land. Consequently the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court. 5. The defendant took up the matter in appeal. Inderjit Singh,handwriting expert who had opined that the thumb impression on the will was not of Kesar Kaur. It also held that Buta Singh was not a bonafide purchaser of the suit land. Consequently the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court. 5. The defendant took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable because the plaintiff had merely sought possession of the estate left behind by Sajjan Singh and had not made any claim on account of the estate left behind by Kesar kaur. Secondly, it was held that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land as claimed by him and at, no point of time, he was forcibly dispossessed. Thirdly, it was held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation inasmuch as Kesar Kaur had died on August 26,1985, whereas the will Ex. P1 was alleged to be dated December 19,1984. 6. The said will had remained a secret document for a very long time. On merits of the controversy, the first appellate court held that the plaintiff had not been able to prove the due execution of the will by Kesar Kaur. The handwriting expert Dr. Inderjit Singh was produced as DW1 by the defendant but no expert was produced by the plaintiff. A large number of other suspicious circumstances were also noticed. In these circumstances, the appeal of the defendant was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was, consequently, dismissed by the learned first appellate Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. Shri Sodhi has argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff could neither be held to be not maintainable nor it could be held to be barred by limitation. She S. C. Chhabra, learned counsel for the defendant has fairly conceded that the aforesaid observations made by the learned first appellate r. S. A. No.2779 of 2004 3 court cannot be legally sustained and,therefore, he has no objection if the said observations are reversed by this court. She S. C. Chhabra, learned counsel for the defendant has fairly conceded that the aforesaid observations made by the learned first appellate r. S. A. No.2779 of 2004 3 court cannot be legally sustained and,therefore, he has no objection if the said observations are reversed by this court. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, the suit field by the plaintiff is held to be maintainable and it is held that the same was not barred by limitation. Shri Sodhi has further argued that the due execution of the will ex. P1 was fully proved by the plaintiff by leading cogent evidence. According to the learned counsel, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. However, I find that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The learned first appellate Court has taken note of a large number of suspicious circumstances. It has also been noticed that kesar Kaur had died on August 26,1985. The suit in question had been filed on December 22,1999. No steps whatsoever were taken by the plaintiff to get a mutation of inheritance of aforesaid Kesar Kaur on the basis of will. In these circumstances the very existence of the will, claimed to have been executed by Kesar Kaur is doubtful. Besides the aforesaid fact, it is also doubtful that any such will was ever executed by Kesar Kaur. Defendant had produced DW1 Dr. Inderjit Singh a handwriting expert who had specifically opined that the thumb impression on will was not shown to be of Kesar Kaur. No evidence by way of any expert witness has been produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not shown to be any relation of sajjan Singh/kesar Kaur. In these circumstances, the execution of any will in his favour is itself a suspicious circumstance. 8. No other point has been urged. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present regular second appeal. Dismissed.