KANWAL SANDHU Vs. KANWALJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff Kanwal Sandhu has preferred this appeal challenging judgment dated 3.3.2020 passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh whereby an appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 20.11.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant had filed a civil suit against his brother's wife Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur, seeking a declaration to the effect that WILL dated 3.4.2002 executed by the appellant's brother Sh. Madan Mohan Singh Sandhu was genuine and valid and that as per the said WILL the ownership of dwelling unit No.3035, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh devolved upon the appellant/plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 i.e. Chandigarh Housing Board from transferring the aforesaid property in favour of respondent/defendant Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur. The case set up by the plaintiff was that his brother Sh. Madan Mohan Singh Sandhu had been keeping unwell due to some heart ailment and had even resided with him in Delhi and that the plaintiff had been serving him and on account of which Sh. Madan Mohan Singh Sandhu had executed WILL dated 3.4.2002 bequeathing his 1/4th share in the ancestral property i.e property bearing No.42, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi in favour of plaintiff's son namely Charan Kamal Sandhu while bequeathing Flat No.3035, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that the said WILL was in fact even signed by defendant Kanwaljeet Kaur as an attesting witness. Plaintiff averred that on 19.5.2002 the defendant/respondent Kanwaljeet Kaur informed her that Sh. Madan Mohan Singh Sandhu has expired. Subsequently when the plaintiff, on the basis of WILL dated 3.4.2002 called upon the tenant of the property i.e. Flat No.3035, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh to pay the rent, the tenant informed that there was in fact a WILL of Sh. Madan Mohan Singh Sandhu, executed in the month of May, 2002 bequeathing the property in favour of the defendant/respondent and that it is the defendant who had been claiming rent from the tenant.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondent in a reply denied the case set up by the appellant/plaintiff wherein the assertion of the plaintiff that defendant's husband had been residing with the appellant in Delhi was specifically denied. The defendant took a stand that in fact the plaintiff and his son have also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in May, 2005 which was still pending. The defendant while denying the factum of execution of WILL dated 3.4.2002 took a stand that in fact there is a WILL executed by the deceased Sh. Madan Mohan Singh Sandhu which was registered on 11.9.2002. Defendant No.2, Chandigarh Housing Board also filed its written statement wherein it took a stand that Chandigarh Housing Board has received a legal notice from Mr. Jasbir Tyagi, Advocate that WILL dated 16.5.2002 in favour of the defendant is a forged WILL and that a civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No.151/2005 was already pending in a Civil Court at Delhi. The parties were put to proof on the following issues: