Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 533 (PNJ)

Ram Parshad v. Harbans Lal

2012-04-03

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.:- The defendant-appellants are in second appeal before this Court. 2. Plaintiff-Tripta Devi instituted Civil Suit No.139 of 1995 for declaration with permanent injunction as a consequential relief claiming to be exclusive owner in possession of the estate of late Ramji Dass i.e. the suit property as detailed in the head note of the plaint claiming to be the only heir under a Will dated 8.8.1994 stated to have been executed by deceased Ramji Dass in her favour during his life time in sound, disposing mind. The present appellants had been arrayed as defendants No.3,4 and 5 in the suit. 3. Another suit bearing No.99 of 1995 was instituted by Harbans Lal and Tirath Ram also for declaration claiming to be the exclusive owners in respect of the estate of deceased Ramji Dass on the basis of a registered Will dated 5.8.1994. In such suit filed by Harbans Lal and Tirath Ram, the present appellants had been arrayed as defendants No.1, 2 and 3. 4. Plaintiff-Tripta Devi in Civil Suit No.139 of 1995 pleaded that she along with her husband had looked after and served Ramji Dass during his life time and who, in turn, executed a legal and valid Will on 8.8.1994 in her favour. In such suit, defendants No.1 and 2, namely, Harbans Lal and Tirath Ram filed a written statement denying the execution of the Will dated 8.8.1994 propounded by plaintiff-Tripta Devi and, in fact, claimed that deceased Ramji Dass had, in fact, executed a Will in their favour on 5.8.1994. Defendants No.3 to 5 i.e. the present appellants also contested the suit and denied the Wills stated to have been executed in favour of plaintiff-Tripta Devi as well the one in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, namely, Harbans Lal and Tirath Ram. Defendants No.3 to 5 set up a case that, in fact, the Will dated 6.8.1994 was the last Will executed by late Ramji Dass in their favour. 5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following crucial issues were framed in the suit titled “Tripta Devi v. Harbans Lal & others”: 1. Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the estate of late Ramji Dass being his legal heir under legal and valid Will dated 8.8.1994? OPP 6. Whether Ramji Dass executed a registered Will dated 5.8.94 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2? OPD- 1&2. Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the estate of late Ramji Dass being his legal heir under legal and valid Will dated 8.8.1994? OPP 6. Whether Ramji Dass executed a registered Will dated 5.8.94 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2? OPD- 1&2. 8. Whether Ramji Dass executed valid Will dated 6.8.94 in favour of defendants No.3 to 5? OPD-3 to 5. 6. Both the suits i.e. Civil Suit No.139 of 1995 titled as “Tripta Devi v. Harbans Lal and others” and Civil Suit No.99 of 1995 titled as “Harbans Lal and another v. Sunder Pal and others” were consolidated by the trial Court vide order dated 3.8.1999. 7. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.7.2005 dismissed the suit bearing No.139 of 1995 filed by plaintiff-Tripta Devi thereby discarding the Will dated 8.8.1994, and the counter-claim filed by defendants No.1 and 2, namely, Harbans Lal and Tirath Ram based on a registered Will dated 5.8.1994 was upheld and decreed. The claim of defendants No.3 to 5 i.e. the present appellants was also dismissed thereby discarding the Will dated 6.8.1994. 8. Against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2005 passed by the trial Court, two civil appeals arose i.e. one filed by the present appellants and the other filed by Tripta Devi. Both the civil appeals have been dismissed by a common judgment dated 3.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Resultantly, the defendant-appellants are in second appeal before this Court. 9. I have heard respective counsel for the parties at length and have perused the case file minutely. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have recorded perverse findings by disbelieving and discarding the Will dated 6.8.1994 and such findings are based on mis-appreciation and mis-reading of facts. 11. The appellants herein are claiming their right to succeed to the estate of Ramji Dass, who is stated to have died on 10.8.1994, on the basis of Will dated 6.8.1994, Exhibit DW6/A. As such, the crucial issue arising for consideration in the present second appeal is as to whether such Will dated 6.8.1994 was a validly and genuinely executed document so as to confer a right of succession upon the appellants. 12. The evidence adduced on record in relation to the Will dated 6.8.1994, Exhibit DW6/A, has been duly appreciated by the Courts below. 12. The evidence adduced on record in relation to the Will dated 6.8.1994, Exhibit DW6/A, has been duly appreciated by the Courts below. The testimony of PW1 who had purportedly scribed the Will in question would be crucial. He has himself stated that he had scribed the Will on a pre-signed plain paper and neither any witness nor the executants were present at that point of time. The scribe has further stated that the Will in question had been scribed by him at the instance of Ram Parshad, Sunder Pal and Ram Chand i.e. the present appellants. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the Will had been scribed 20 days after the death of Ramji Dass. As such, a concurrent finding had been recorded by the Courts below to hold the Will dated 6.8.1994, Exhibit DW6/A, to have not been genuinely executed. The Courts have upheld the Will dated 5.8.1994, Exhibit D2, which was propounded by Harbans Lal and Tirath Ram. Such Will is a duly registered Will and the same has been held to be duly proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Both the Courts below have even discarded the Will dated 8.8.1994, Exhibit P1, propounded by plaintiff-Tripta Devi, the same having been held to be shrouded under suspicious circumstances. 13. The question regarding determination of the validity of a Will is essentially a question of fact. The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not embark upon an exercise of reappreciation of evidence. Interference would be warranted only if the findings recorded by a Court of fact are based on a complete mis-appreciation and mis-reading of evidence as well as a perverse finding having been recorded which raises a substantial question of law. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to demonstrate any perversity or mis-reading and misappreciation of evidence adduced on record. 15. Respective counsel are also agreed as regards the fact that RSA No.1698 of 2010 filed by Tripta Devi against the same impugned judgment dated 3.12.2009 passed by the first Appellate Court already stands dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 16. 15. Respective counsel are also agreed as regards the fact that RSA No.1698 of 2010 filed by Tripta Devi against the same impugned judgment dated 3.12.2009 passed by the first Appellate Court already stands dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 16. For the reasons recorded above, I find that the present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 17. The present second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. Appeal dismissed. --------------------