Date of Decision: July 4, 2014 Vs. Om Parkash and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154516
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2014
AppellantDate of Decision: July 4, 2014
RespondentOm Parkash and Others
Excerpt:
rsa no.2078 of 2014 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh1 rsa no.2078 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: july 4, 2014 sumer singh & another ...appellants versus om parkash & others ...respondents2 rsa no.2264 of 2014 (o&m) sumer singh & another ...appellants versus om parkash & others ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice m. jeyapaul.1. whether the judgement should be reported in the digest?. yes/no ---- present: mr. mahavir sandhu, advocate for the appellants. m. jeyapaul, j.(oral) cm-5066-c-2014 1. application is allowed. cm-5067-c-2014 2. as the main case itself has been taken up for disposal, the application stands dismissed as infructuous. rsa-2078-2014 3. both the matters are found to be connected with each other. the subject matter in rsa no.2078 of 2014 is an agricultural land and the subject matters in the rsa no.2264 of 2014 are two vacant sites. gulati sumit 2014.07.08 11:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rsa no.2078 of 2014 (o&m) -2- therefore, both the matters are taken up together for common disposal.4. the plaintiffs in both the suits are the appellants herein.5. the plaintiffs have contended in both the suits that they being nearest legal heirs of lila son of mangli @ maghni who died intestate without issue are entitled to succeed to his estate. the plaintiffs contended that the will allegedly executed in favour of the defendants is a forged and fabricated document. the civil decree obtained by the defendants as against lila in civil suit no.906 of 1992 is also a fake and bogus decree. defendants no.1 and 2 have contended that lila relinquished his right in the suit properties in favour of defendants no.1 & 2. lila also executed a will dated 19.6.1992 in favour of the defendants in equal shares. further, the defendants have got a valid decree which would bind on the plaintiffs.6. both the courts below have held that the will ex.dw1/a dated 19.6.1992 was executed by lila at the age of 70 in favour of defendants no.1 & 2 in a sound disposing state of mind. lila also suffered a decree in favour of defendants no.1 & 2. the decree was not obtained by defendants no.1 & 2 against lila by playing fraud.7. learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that the will was not established by the defendants/respondents. the collusive decree was obtained by playing fraud upon illiterate lila.8. one of the attesting witnesses was examined before the trial court apart from the scribe of the document. both the courts have concurrently found that the will was established by defendants no.1 & 2. such a finding is not found to be perverse. gulati sumit 2014.07.08 11:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rsa no.2078 of 2014 (o&m) -3- 9. the defendants also examined dw7 sh. s.k.vashist, advocate who has deposed that he having been engaged by lila filed written statement in civil suit no.906 of 1992 on behalf of lila. only on the basis of the admitted position in the written statement, judgement and decree ex.p19 and p20 were passed by the civil court on 5.12.1992. there is nothing on record to show that fraud was played upon illiterate lila.10. in view of the above, i find that the courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence on record and come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established their case and therefore, they are not entitled to the relief sought for. no substantial question of law also has arisen for determination. the appeals merit no consideration. therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. july 4, 2014 (m. jeyapaul) gulati judge gulati sumit 2014.07.08 11:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

RSA No.2078 of 2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1 RSA No.2078 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: July 4, 2014 SUMER SINGH & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS OM PARKASH & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS2 RSA No.2264 of 2014 (O&M) SUMER SINGH & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS OM PARKASH & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL.

1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest?. Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. MAHAVIR SANDHU, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. M. JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL) CM-5066-C-2014 1. Application is allowed. CM-5067-C-2014 2. As the main case itself has been taken up for disposal, the application stands dismissed as infructuous. RSA-2078-2014 3. Both the matters are found to be connected with each other. The subject matter in RSA No.2078 of 2014 is an agricultural land and the subject matters in the RSA No.2264 of 2014 are two vacant sites. Gulati Sumit 2014.07.08 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.2078 of 2014 (O&M) -2- Therefore, both the matters are taken up together for common disposal.

4. The plaintiffs in both the suits are the appellants herein.

5. The plaintiffs have contended in both the suits that they being nearest legal heirs of Lila son of Mangli @ Maghni who died intestate without issue are entitled to succeed to his estate. The plaintiffs contended that the Will allegedly executed in favour of the defendants is a forged and fabricated document. The civil decree obtained by the defendants as against Lila in Civil Suit No.906 of 1992 is also a fake and bogus decree. Defendants No.1 and 2 have contended that Lila relinquished his right in the suit properties in favour of defendants No.1 & 2. Lila also executed a Will dated 19.6.1992 in favour of the defendants in equal shares. Further, the defendants have got a valid decree which would bind on the plaintiffs.

6. Both the Courts below have held that the Will Ex.DW1/A dated 19.6.1992 was executed by Lila at the age of 70 in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 in a sound disposing state of mind. Lila also suffered a decree in favour of defendants No.1 & 2. The decree was not obtained by defendants No.1 & 2 against Lila by playing fraud.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that the Will was not established by the defendants/respondents. The collusive decree was obtained by playing fraud upon illiterate Lila.

8. One of the attesting witnesses was examined before the trial Court apart from the scribe of the document. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the Will was established by defendants No.1 & 2. Such a finding is not found to be perverse. Gulati Sumit 2014.07.08 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.2078 of 2014 (O&M) -3- 9. The defendants also examined DW7 Sh. S.K.Vashist, Advocate who has deposed that he having been engaged by Lila filed written statement in Civil Suit No.906 of 1992 on behalf of Lila. Only on the basis of the admitted position in the written statement, judgement and decree Ex.P19 and P20 were passed by the Civil Court on 5.12.1992. There is nothing on record to show that fraud was played upon illiterate Lila.

10. In view of the above, I find that the Courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence on record and come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established their case and therefore, they are not entitled to the relief sought for. No substantial question of law also has arisen for determination. The appeals merit no consideration. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. July 4, 2014 (M. JEYAPAUL) Gulati JUDGE Gulati Sumit 2014.07.08 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document