GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. BALDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffappellants challenging the judgments and decrees dtd. 12/8/2015 and 11/10/2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellants herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dtd. 29/9/2006 passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Bathinda regarding the inheritance of Raghbir Singh son of Sarban Singh whereby the properties of Raghbir Singh were inherited equally by his legal heirs on the basis of natural succession being illegal, null and void and by ignoring the unregistered Will dtd. 4/7/2004 executed by Raghbir Singh in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and Gurdeep Singh i.e. defendant-respondent No.2. Order dtd. 13/3/2007 passed by the Collector, Bathinda was also challenged vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed upholding the order dtd. 29/9/2006. Challenge was also laid to the order dtd. 8/8/2007 passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot vide which the revision petition was dismissed. An unregistered Will dtd. 4/7/2004 was set up by the plaintiff-appellants which was alleged to have been executed by Raghbir Singh in favour of his three sons i.e. the plaintiffappellants herein and defendant-respondent No.2 - Gurdeep Singh - qua his movable and immovable properties. It was the case set up that pleased with the services rendered by his sons, Raghbir Singh had executed an unregistered Will dtd. 4/7/2004 in their favour. It was further the case that Raghbir Singh during his lifetime had given enough dowry articles to defendant-respondents No.3 and 4 (daughters) equal to their shares in the properties at the time of their marriage and they had accordingly relinquished their shares in the properties.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant-respondent No.1 i.e. wife of Raghbir Singh and his third son, namely, Gurdeep Singh (defendantrespondent No.2) raising various preliminary objections. It was the stand taken that the unregistered Will dtd. 4/7/2004 was a fabricated document. It was further the stand taken that the mutation had rightly been sanctioned as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The daughters i.e. defendant-respondents No.3 and 4 also filed their separate written statement and took similar pleas.