MOHINDER KAUR Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned for the reasons contained in the application which is supported by an affidavit.

(2.) On merits, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the first instance that the identity of Dharam Singh has not been established. He submitted that Dharam Singh is the son of Arjan Singh son of Faqir Singh but in the Will Ex. D1 it is mentioned that Dharam Singh is the son of Arjun Ram son of Nathu Ram. He further submits that the name of the legatee has been written as Harbhajan Power instead of Harbhajan Singh. The first submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. There is no evidence on the record to show that there is any other person in the name of Harbhajan Singh son of Arjun Ram son of Nathu Ram residing at the said address. Moreover, the plaintiffs are none else but the real sisters of Harbhajan Singh defendant. Also, there is not an iota of suggestion given to Harbhajan Singh to this effect. In this view of the matter, I repel the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Harbhajan Singh defendant wanted to grab the land at all costs. Firstly, he put an exchange deeds and those exchange deeds have been disproved. Thereafter, he set up the forged Will. This submission of the learned counsel again cannot be accepted firstly for the reason that the Will is a registered document and it has been duly proved from the statements of the scribe as well as Naib Tehsildar, who registered the same. The Will is dated 20.3.1985. Dharam Singh died in the year 1994.