LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-203

CHARANJIT KAUR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

Decided On May 08, 2015
CHARANJIT KAUR Appellant
V/S
SUKHDEV SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal came up for motion hearing for the first time on November 25, 2009 when the lower court records were summoned for January 27, 2010. Thereafter, this appeal has meandered through 28 adjournments without the appellants having addressed effective arguments for an admission of the appeal so far. On March 30, 2015 i.e. on the 28th adjournment, I accepted the request for another adjournment on account of counsel being in personal difficulty but directed that on the adjourned date, this Court would expect that the matter would be argued failing which it would entail dismissal of the appeal. The Court had requested learned counsel appearing in second appeals in terms of note in cause list for Court room No.21 as follows: -

(2.) BUT those were not filed even though it was only a request which would help save time at the hearing. The facts in brief are that one Tehal Singh was owner of 327 kanals 15 marlas of land. He left behind his widow Bhag Kaur and sons Malkiat Singh and Sukhdev Singh. After the death of Bhag Kaur on November 21, 1983 the land devolved upon the legal heirs but disputes arose regarding the validity and legality of two testamentary Wills dated November 17, 1987 and November 19, 1983 allegedly executed by Bhag Kaur and propounded by the parties. This sparked off the litigation started by Charanjit Kaur widow of Sukhdev Singh and her three sons Amarjit Singh, Surinder Pal Singh and Ajit Singh [when Surinder Pal Singh and Ajit Singh were minors represented through their mother]. The litigation was brought against Malkiat Singh on the basis of the Wills with respect to the property left behind by Bhag Kaur. Two sons of Malkiat Singh, namely Rajinderpal Singh and Kirpal Singh filed Suit No.283 of 16.11.1984 against Charanjit Kaur widow of Sukhdev Singh and her sons and their father Malkiat Singh and uncle Sukhdev Singh. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated May 27, 1986.

(3.) THE trial Court rejected both the Wills which were held not to be proved in accordance with law. The chapter did not end there.