NARINDER SINGH ALIAS NIDHAN SINGH Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two suits where parties are the same, one at the instance of the plaintiffs, who are the petitioners here and another at the instance of the defendant in the plaintiffs' suit, who are the plaintiffs in the other suit. The petitions in the suits have been disposed of by a common order and the revision petitions are therefore taken up together. The reference to defendant in the case is to the sons and the reference to the plaintiff in the case is the person claiming to be daughter.

(2.) THE defendant, who resisted an action claiming a share in the property as heirs of Hardial Singh, had a contention to make that Hardial Singh had executed a Will in favour of the sons to the exclusion of the daughter through whom the plaintiff's claim was made. The Will was alleged to have been made on 13.12.1973 before the death of Hardial Singh that took place on 15.12.1973. The mutation in favour of the defendants -sons on the basis of the alleged Will was said to have been made on 05.06.1975 through Mutation No.794. The plaintiff denied that there existed any Will and it was defendant's turn to establish that there was a Will and the bequest in favour of the defendant.

(3.) THE defendant had in his written statement contended that the original Will had been produced before the revenue officials at the time of mutation proceedings and it was likely that the plaintiffs themselves secreted the original file from the mutation file. The defendant moved an application for the production of secondary evidence. The secondary evidence was not available through any of the copies made at the relevant time but it was by way of oral evidence of the contents. The court rejected the plea to allow for any oral evidence since no evidence was given about who had seen the execution of the Will or who were the attestors of Will.