Judgment:
Rs.No.3303 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3303 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:
17. 12.2012 Bahadur Singh and others ........Appellants versus Ranjit Kaur and others ........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.B.R.Gupta , Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.A.S.Jattana, Advocate for respondent No.1.
**** 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?.
Ajay Tewari, J.
(Oral).This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1-Ranjit Kaur-plaintiff for a declaration that she had inherited the property of her late husband who died in the year 1992.
The appellants are the nephews of her late husband who are seeking to stake their title on the basis of a will and a decree.
The trial court dismissed the suit but the Lower Appellate Court held on fact that the decree and will were vitiated documents since it was proved that the husband of the respondent Sukhdev Singh was suffering from cancer.
The will was purportedly executed on 02.08.1991 and he was admitted in the hospital on 05.08.1991.
He was discharged after about 10 days but was Rs.No.3303 of 2008 (O&M) 2 readmitted on 16.04.1992.
The decree was obtained on 25.05.1992 and he died on 29.05.1992.
With regard to Bahadur Singh a settlement has been arrived at.
Sh.A.S.Jattana, Advocate, on instructions from his client, has stated that his client would have no objection if usufruct of the land of her husband can be enjoyed by and in that situation she would have no objection if the appeal of Bahadur Singh is allowed.
Sh.B.R.Gupta, Advocate, on instructions from his client, has stated that Bahadur Singh is ready to pay an amount of ` 10 lacs to the respondent No.1 which would represent the usufruct of the land in his share.
On instructions from his client Mr.Jattana has accepted this offer with the caveat that the amount is deposited within three months from today.
This further has been accepted by learned counsel for the appellant.
Resultantly the appeal of Bahadur Singh with regard to 19 bighas of land which is in his possession is accepted subject to his paying a sum of ` 10 lacs to respondent No.1 within a period of three months from today.
As mentioned above this would represent a life long usufruct of the land in dispute which has not gone to the share of Bahadur Singh.
Let the deposit be made on or before 15.03.2013 before the trial Court who will then disbuRs.the same to respondent No.1.
It is made clear that in case the necessary deposit is not made on or before the date fixed, the appeal qua Bahadur Singh would be deemed to be dismissed.
As regards the appeal of Harjinder Singh, he has not shown any inclination to have an amicable settlement and consequently I proceed to decide his appeal on merits.
When this appeal was filed, the following questions were proposed:- Rs.No.3303 of 2008 (O&M”
1. Whether the learned lower appellate court decided the appeal on emotions and not on legally admissible evidence?.
2) Whether the learned lower appellate court has misread/misinterpreted/misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence?.
3) Whether the self serving statement of the plaintiff is sufficient to discard the consistent/cogent evidence led by the appellants to prove the due passing of the decree dated 25.5.1992 and due execution of the will dated 2.8.1991?.
4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned lower appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned trial court which also had the advantage of recording the evidence and appreciating the same in the right perspective?.
5) Whether the plaintiff who had left the deceased in lurch due to his terminal ailment can claim his property over and above these who stood by him infighting against that ailment and serving him at the time of need?.
6) Whether exclusion of the plaintiff from inheritance of the property of the deceased can be said to be a suspicious circumstance when detailed reasons for such exclusion have been given in the will itself?.
7) Whether the plaintiff/respondent could maintain the present suit without challenging the mutation Ex.P22 sanctioned on 26.3.1993?.
8) What is the effect of the plaintiff not giving the particulars of alleged fraud?.
9) Whether the plaintiff/respondent could succeed in her suit when the allegations of fraud/impersonation and misrepresentation have not been proved on the record because there was no evidence to support those allegations?.
It would be seen that questions No.1 to 6 and 8 and 9 are pure Rs.No.3303 of 2008 (O&M) 4 questions of fact.
Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me not only through the findings of the courts bellow recorded thereon but also the evidence but has not been able to persuade me that the findings of the Courts below recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perveRs.misreading of the evidence so as to render them liable for interference under Section 100 CPC.
Question No.7 purports to be a question of law but since it has been repeatedly held by the courts that mutation does not bestow any title, the omission to challenge the mutation would not render the suit non-maintainable.
Deciding all the questions proposed against appellant No.2-Harjinder Singh, the appeal qua him is dismissed.
No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.
Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 17 , 2012 sunita