Judgment:
Mahesh Grover, J.
1. Delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned. This is plaintiffs second appeal directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 21.11.1998 and the first Appellate Court dated 21.7.2008.
2. The appellants and respondent No. 1 are descendants of one Sham Dass Pandhi whose estate is in dispute. Appellants No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant No. 3 and respondents from carrying on the business of rice shelling, sale of paddy and agriculture products under the name and style of M/s Krishna Rice Mills, Fatehgarh Churian along with rendition of accounts upto 17.2.1989 and the profits earned by them after the death of Sham Lal Pandhi. It was alleged that said Sham Dass Pandhi was carrying on the partnership business of the said firm and was having 35% share in the firm. He was allegedly having 35% share in the immovable properties of the said firm and he died on 17.2.1989 leaving behind the parties to inherit his estate in equal shares. It was further alleged that the deceased had a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- to his credit in the books of account of the firm and after his death the parties were entitled in equal shares to the goodwill, assets and other properties of the firm as per the share of their deceased father and were also entitled to the amount lying to his credit along with the profits earned. Upon notice, appellant No. 3 and respondent No. 2 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants while the suit was contested by respondent No. 1, who set up a Will dated 31.12.1988 to contend that the same was to the exclusion of the appellants and they are not entitled to the relief claimed. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to rendition of accounts of the firm? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
6. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP
7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action? OPD
8. Whether he suit is barred u/O 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.? OPD
9. Whether Sham Dass executed a valid will in favour of defendant No. 3? If so its effect? OPD
10. Relief.
On the basis of evidence before it, the learned trial Court concluded that the Will in question was a valid piece of document executed in favour of respondent No. 1 and to the exclusion of the appellants.
3. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed.
4. In the present regular second appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that there are numerous factors which point out to the suspicious nature of the document. He contended that the Will was executed on 31.12.1988 and there was interpolation in the Will as the last digit in figure '1989' was converted into '1988' and that further late Sham Dass Pandhi was a propertied man and all his previous transactions were scribed by a particular scribe who had been rendering service to the deceased, but in so far as the Will in question is concerned, it was scribed by a different scribe who even did not recognize the testator of the Will. It was next contended that there was no reason to exclude the appellants from the Will and that the Will being an unregistered document when viewed in this perspective cannot be said to be worth reliance.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments.
6. Both the Courts below have concluded that the Will was a valid piece of document. The testator, Shri Sham Dass Pandhi while excluding the appellants from the purview of the Will had broadly given the following reasons which have also been delineated in the reasons given by the Courts below:
(i) Sufficient money is spent by him on the marriage of Ashok Kumar, Hari Krishan and Kanchan Bala.
(ii) He has also given property to all of them even after their marriage.
(iii) All three of them started litigation with him, resultantly disreputation for him.
(iv) All three of them are following their own way and are not obeying deceased Sham Dass Pandhi.
7. There is no denial to the fact that the appellants were litigating with the deceased which alone can be a sufficient factor to oust a particular heir or a particular set of heirs from inheritance. The mere fact that last digit occurring in figure '1989' has been converted into '1988' will not render a document suspicious and not worthy of reliance as this can be termed to be a simple human error and similarly the fact that it was scribed by a different scribe and not by the scribe who used to write documents for the testator, would ipso facto be not termed to be a suspicious circumstance, if the Will has been proved by other means and by following the process of law. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the contents of the Will were proved and therefore it can safely be to be a reflection of the testator's desire.
8. No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.