PREM LALA Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 Smt. Prem Lata has filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5-6-2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, whereby her application for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the Will in question has been dismissed.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Smt. Prem Lata got inherited immovable property situated in village Jathlana, District Yamunanagar, as well as one house consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and one store, on the basis of the Will dated 5.9.1990 executed by her mother Smt. Chaman Devi and mutation No. 4579 was sanctioned in her favour on the basis of the order dated 2.2.1995 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jagadhri. Smt. Kamla Devi plaintiff made a challenge to the Will dated 5.9.1990 allegedly executed by her mother as well as the mutation sanctioned in favour of her sister Smt. Prem Lata on the basis of the order dated 2.2.1995 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jagadhri. The suit was contested by Smt. Prem Lata defendant by filing a detailed written statement pleading therein that her mother Smt. Chaman Devi had executed the Will dated 5.9.1990 in her favour and the A.C. 1st Grade, Jagadhri, had sanctioned the mutation in her favour after ascertaining the genuineness of the Will in question and the original Will was tagged with the case file of the Revenue Authorities. The record from the office of A.C. 1st Grade was summoned but the original Will could not be traced out. Even the inquiry made from the office of Kanoongo also proved to be a furtile exercise. Thereafter, Smt Prem Lata defendant filed an application for permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the Will dated 5.9.1990 executed by her mother Smt Chaman Devi in her favour. The said application has been dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, vide order dated 5.6.2003. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) THE contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have vehemently been controverted by Mr. Anil Khetarpal, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, who contended that proceedings for imutation are not judicial proceedings in which title to or proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. He also contended that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the proprietary rights qua the immovable property. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Mst. BUI (deceased) represented by her legal representatives v. Gurdip Singh, 1976 P.L.J. 345.