RAJINDER SINGH Vs. SUBEDAR HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Civil revision against the order of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana dated 16-11-1998 whereby he declined the application of the plaintiffs moved by them under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permitting them to resummon Ajit Singh son of Sohan Singh by way of additional evidence.

(2.) It was a suit filed by Balwinder Singh, Jasminder Singh alias Jaswinder Singh Rajinder Singh sons of Subedar Hari Singh son of Jagir Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Jagtar Singh sons of Amarjit Singh son of Jagir Singh, plaintiffs against Subedar Hari Singh and others, defendants for declaration that they and defendants Nos. 6 to 9 are exclusive owners of land measuring 126 Kanals 5 marlas on the basis of registered will dated 12-3-1981 executed by Jagir Singh son of Harnam Singh in their favour and for permanent injunction restraining Subedar Hari Singh etc., defendants from interfering in their possession and for further declaration that mutation No. 4593 dated 17-4-1986 in favour of Subedar Hari Singh, etc. defendants Nos. 1 to 5 is illegal and ineffective so far as the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 6 to 9 in the land are concerned.

(3.) In the application filed under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs for summoning Ajit Singh son of Sohan Singh and examining him, it is averred that in the will executed by Jagir Singh dated 12-3-1981, he had bequeathed 1/3rd share in favour of three sons of Hari Singh son of Jagir Singh. He had bequeathed 1/3rd share in favour of two sons of Amarjit Singh son of Jagir Singh and he had bequeathed the remaining 1/3rd share in favour of four sons of Babu Singh. Will was attested by Ajit Singh son of Sohan Singh and Darbara Singh, Lambardar. It is averred in this application that Darbara Singh, Lambardar has expired while Ajit Singh is alive. Ajit Singh hobnobbed with defendant Gurcharan Singh son of Jagir Singh and joined hands with him. Ajit Singh was directed to be summoned through warrants. Ajit Singh did not turn up for evidence due to pressure of Gurcharan Singh. Eventually, Court closed evidence of the plaintiffs by order. It is further averred in this application that it was not in the control of the plaintiffs to produce Ajit Singh when he had turned hostile. It is averred that to prove the execution of the will at least one attesting witness is required to be examined because of the mandatory provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act.