JAGIR SINGH Vs. JAGIR KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Jagir Singh Defendant against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below by which Will in his favour has been discared whereas the Will in favour of the Plaintiff -Respondents has been upheld.

(2.) THE necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Plaintiffs instituted the present suit on the averments that Smt. Harnam Kaur widow of Mansha Singh was their mother who died on 1 -4 -1975, leaving behind a registered Will dated 5 -7 -1974 bequeathing her entire properties in their favour. The Defendants were stated to be having no concern with the property but they took forcible possession of the same six months prior to the institution of the suit and, therefore, their possession was unlawful. The Defendant contested the suit by stating that Harnam Kaur did not die a natural death but she was murdered by the Plaintiffs along with another person who were challaned under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was denied that the Plaintiffs were heirs of Harnam Kaur and therefore, the question of their succeeding to her land did not arise. The Will was set up by the Appellants in their favour, which was alleged to have been executed on 23 -3 -1975, vide which she was alleged to have bequeathed of her properties in favour of Jagir Singh Defendant. It was further the case of the Defendants that according to the later Will, the previous Will was revoked. The Defendant Appellant described himself to be the legal heir of the deceased who on her death succeeded her and became full owner of all the properties left -by her as he was collateral and agnate of Harnam Kaur and her deceased husband. The properties in suit were described to have been inherited by Harnam Kaur from her husband. Defendant No. 2 Surjit Singh has been described to have been wrongly impleaded as he was not in possession of the property in dispute. It was denied that the Plaintiffs were the daughters of Harnam Kaur. On the basis of the rival pleas taken by the parties, the trial Court struck the following issues:

(3.) MR . Ajay Kumar Mittal, Advocate, assisted by Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below under the relevant issues are erroneous and based upon non -considerations of the relevant evidence, surmises and conjectures. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the evidence recorded by the Courts below, are based upon good evidence and the same can be sustained.