Date of Decision:-13.3.2014 Vs. Kaushalya Devi

Date of Decision:-13.3.2014 vs Kaushalya Devi

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 13, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1133608

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1133608
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Mar 13, 2014
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Family

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Date of Decision:-13.3.2014

Respondent

Kaushalya Devi

Excerpt

.....order dated 28.1.2014 (annexure p1).by virtue of which, the trial court has framed the following additional issue no.1-a and placed the burden of proof on defendant no.1:- 1-a. whether rajan garg had executed a legal and valid will dated 11.6.2004 in favour of defendant number 1 ?. opd12. after arguing the matter for some time, when this court was not inclined to entertain the instant revision petition against the impugned order (annexure p1).as it relates to the framing of additional issue no.1-a in exercise of superintendence jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india, then, the learned counsel for the petitioners intends to withdraw the present petition. 3. needless to mention that since the trial court has framed the pointed additional issue, with regard to the validity and genuineness or otherwise of the will dated 11.6.2004 and placed the burden of proof on arvind kumar sharma 2014.03.14 17:20 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh civil revision no.1921 of 2014 2 defendant no.1, so, she has a legal right to produce her evidence to prove the indicated will. therefore, the trial court is directed to grant one opportunity to defendant no.1 to prove the will in question at the firs.instance, thereafter one opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut her evidence brought on record in support of additional issue no.1-a and then to decide the case in accordance with law. 4. in this view of the matter, the impugned order (annexure p1) is modified only to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-above. however, the instant main revision petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for. sd/- 13.3.2014 (mehinder singh sullar) as judge arvind kumar sharma 2014.03.14 17:20 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Full Judgment

Civil Revision No.1921 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1921 of 2014 Date of Decision:-13.3.2014 Navita Garg & Ors......Petitioners Versus Kaushalya Devi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

Present: Mr.Harshit Jain, Advocate for the petitioneRs.MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.

(Oral) The challenge in this revision petition, preferred by petitioneRs.defendants Navita Garg, widow of Rajan Garg and others (for brevity “the defendants”.).is to the impugned order dated 28.1.2014 (Annexure P1).by virtue of which, the trial Court has framed the following additional issue No.1-A and placed the burden of proof on defendant No.1:- 1-A.

Whether Rajan Garg had executed a legal and valid will dated 11.6.2004 in favour of defendant number 1 ?.

OPD12.

After arguing the matter for some time, when this Court was not inclined to entertain the instant revision petition against the impugned order (Annexure P1).as it relates to the framing of additional issue No.1-A in exercise of superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, then, the learned counsel for the petitioners intends to withdraw the present petition.

Needless to mention that since the trial Court has framed the pointed additional issue, with regard to the validity and genuineness or otherwise of the Will dated 11.6.2004 and placed the burden of proof on Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1921 of 2014 2 defendant No.1, so, she has a legal right to produce her evidence to prove the indicated Will.

Therefore, the trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to defendant No.1 to prove the Will in question at the fiRs.instance, thereafter one opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut her evidence brought on record in support of additional issue No.1-A and then to decide the case in accordance with law.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order (Annexure P1) is modified only to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-above.

However, the instant main revision petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for.

Sd/- 13.3.2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Date of Decision:-13.3.2014 vs Kaushalya Devi Same Subject Family