PARKASH KAUR Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Parkash Kaur against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, vide which her claims to the suit property on the basis of the Will dated 27.6.1978 (Ex. P1) alleged to have been executed by her father Amar Singh by excluding his sons, another daughter and wife, has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Amar Singh, who had migrated from Pakistan, was allotted the land in dispute measuring 89 Kanals 18 Marlas, situated in two villages, namely Bagh Sikandar and Ferozepur, now in District Fatehgarh Sahib. He was having four sons, two sons of his pre-deceased son Saudagar Singh, two daughters and his wife. On 6.5.1976, he suffered a consent decree regarding the land in question in favour of his aforesaid four sons and two grandsons. Subsequently, by the instant suit, which was filed on 4.3.1978, he challenged the aforesaid consent decree being null and void and based upon fraud and mis-representation. He alleged that the aforesaid consent decree was got suffered by him on the fraud played by his sons, who brought him to Bassi Pathana for getting the medicine and told him that he has to appear before the revenue authorities to inform them that all of his sons cultivate the land along with him, otherwise, his land would be declared surplus. It was also alleged that the aforesaid consent decree was not legally valid as it amounts to transfer of the property of the value of more than Rs. 100/- and the same was not registered. In that suit, Amar Singh impleaded all of his four sons and two grandsons as defendants.

(3.) AS discussed above, the Will Ex. A1 is shrouded in highly suspicious and doubtful circumstances and does not appear to be natural at all. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent explanation for the above said suspicious circumstances the conscious of court is not satisfied regarding its genuineness nor it appears to be natural one. No cogent explanation for the above said suspicious circumstances could have been put forth on behalf of the applicant and thus the necessary conditions as laid down through various rulings, including by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1959 page 443 and AIR 1964 page 529. Therefore, the court is inclined not to accept the alleged Will Ex. A1 as genuine, therefore, on its basis the applicant cannot be held to be the sole L.R. of deceased plaintiff Amar Singh. Accordingly this issue has been decided against her. As discussed vide findings on issue No. 1 above the applicant cannot be held entitled to be the sole L.R. of deceased plaintiff Amar Singh on the basis of alleged Will, Ex. A1.