NETAR SINGH Vs. HARNEK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2001 pased by Addl. District Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the appeal of the appellants by affirming the findings of the trial Court which held that though the plaintiffs are in possession of the property but the Will propounded by them allegedly executed by Chhota Singh is not a genuine document for the following reasons as given in paras No. 12 to 15 of the judgment of the trial Court :-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the revenue Court is not binding upon the civil Court and even if it is held in the order 11.10.1988 that the Will of Chhota Singh has not been proved or that it is a bogus document, yet the civil court has to formulate an independent finding. I do not dispute with the proposition of law as laid down by the learned counsel for the appellants. Firstly, I may mention that the order dated 11.10.1988 has not been challenged by the plaintiffs at any stage. Though the finding of the revenue court is not binding upon the civil court but the procedure of proving the Will will remain the same whether in the revenue Court or in the civil Court. Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiffs have led any cogent evidence with regard to the due execution of the Will. Sant Ram, one of the attesting witnesses of the Will is alive but he has not been examined by the plaintiffs in the civil Court for the reasons best known to them.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that after the death of Chhota Singh the plaintiffs have been discharging his responsibilities and dues and, therefore, it should be held that Chhota Singh executed the Will in their favour and bequeathed his property in their favour. Again the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable to this Court. By mere discharging all the dues of Chhota Singh does not mean that the execution of the Will has been proved which is an independent act and has to be proved according to law. Resultantly, I am not in a position to agree with any of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and thus the findings of the first Appellate Court are affirmed. No merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.