AMAR KAUR Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by both the Courts below wherein she has sought declaration to the effect that she along with defendant- respondents 4 to 9 were owners in equal shares and are in joint possession of the suit land which fell to the share of Assa Ram alias Assa Singh son of Sawan. Further relief restraining the predecessors of defendant-respondents from alienating the suit land by way of sale, gift or mortgage etc. was also sought. To understand the controversy raised before the Courts below a reference to the pedigree table is necessary and the same reads as follows :-

(2.) ASSA Ram alias Assa Singh (for brevity, 'Assa Ram') was unmarried and was issueless. It is also obvious that Amar Kaur plaintiff-appellant and Jit Singh defendant-respondent (since dead represented by his legal heirs respondents 1 to 3) (for brevity, 'Jit Singh defendant') are real sisters and brother. According to the findings recorded by both the Courts below, Assa Ram executed a registered will Ex. D1 dated 3.6.1987 and also suffered a decree dated 17.8.1989 in favour of Jit Singh-defendant. It has further been found that on the basis of decree, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Jit Singh defendant on 1.8.1981. Still further it has further been found that Assa Ram was of sound disposing mind at the time of his death. This fact has been admitted by the plaintiff-appellant in her statement. She conceded that at the time of his death, she was present and Assa Ram was of sound disposing mind. The learned Additional District Judge after discussing the entire evidence at a considerable length has recorded categorical findings which read as under :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this appeal is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the will which is a registered document has been validly executed by the testator Assa Ram in favour of Jit Singh- defendant. The relationship of Assa Ram is the same with the plaintiff- appellant and Jit Singh-defendant who are real sister and brother. It has also come in evidence that the ashes of Assa Ram were immersed by Jit Singh- defendant. Assa Ram was in sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the will and the will has been duly proved by producing the expert. The will is a registered document. There is no suspicious circumstance surrounding the will. Even the decree dated 17.8.1989 has been proved on record. It has also been convincingly explained as to why the will dated 3.6.1987 has not been disclosed in the written statement Ex. DW-6/A filed by Assa Ram in Civil Suit No. 469 dated 16.10.1988 by observing that the will was to come in operation only after the death of testator and no useful purpose would have been served by referring the same in the written statement filed by Assa Ram in the aforementioned suit. Thereafter, the mutation was sanctioned on 1.8.1991. Civil Suit No. 296 from which the present appeal has arisen was filed by the plaintiff-appellant on 1.8.1997. Therefore, I do not find any legal infirmity in the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below.