MEHTAB SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Mohtab Singh plaintiff agairst the dismissal of the suit by both the lower Courts. According to the plain- tiff's allegations the parties are related to each other though a little distantly and the genealogical table set up by the plaintiff so far as it is relevant to the present case is as follows: jai SINGH _________________|______________ | | jawahar Singh Bahadar Singh | | lehna Singh=mt. Raj=mst. Attar=mst. | (d. s. p.) Kaur Kaur Bhagwani | | (Widows) | mst. Lachmi Mohar Singh (daughter) ___________|___ | | | | Gurbachan Singh Sadhu Singh | _________|______________ | | | | | | Mehtab Raja Daulat Naran-| Singh Singh Singh jan Singh | (Plaintiff)| ____________________________________________ | | gaja Singh Sardara defedant | no. 2. Ajit Singh defendant No. 1.

(2.) THE property in dispute originally belonged to Jawahar Singh son of Jai Singh. He had a son lehna Singh who died in the life-time of his lather leaving three widows. Jawahar Singh is alleged to have executed a will on 2nd April, 1901 and it is alleged that he got it registered. Jawahar Singh died on 7th December, 1901 and after his death the three widows of his pre-deceas-ed son took possession of the property. Subsequently Attar Kaur and then Raj Kaur died and then Bhagwani alias Bhagwan Kaur alone got posseision of the property. She executed a will on 8th March, 1937. bequeathing the property to Mehtab Singh. She then gifted the same property to him by a deed of gift and transferred possession to him. Thereafter a consent decree was obtained by Mehtab Singh against Mst. Bhag-wani relating to this very property. Bhagwan Kaur died on 30th January, 1944. The revenue authorities did not accept the right claimed by Mehtab Singh to these lands and ordered mutation in favour of Ajit Singh and Gaja singh, descendants of Mst. Lachhmi. This order led Mehtab Singh to file the present suit for declaration of his title on the basis of his relationship with Jawahar Singh under custom and also on the bads of the will of Mst. Bhagwani Kaur. The suit has been filed against the descendants of Mst. Lachhmi who set up We registered will of Jawahar Singh dated 2nd April 1001 in support of their title. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his relationship with Jawahar Singh, that secondary evidence of the 1901 will was admissible as the original will was lost, and that its execution by Jawahar Singh was amply proved on the record. The trial Court also held that under the will the widows got only limited estate and Bhagwan kaur had no right to gift or bequeath or transfer the property to the plaintiff. On these findings the suit was dismissed. On appeal the District Judge upheld the trial Court's finding regarding plaintiff's failure to prove his relationship with Jawahar Singh. He also held that his claim was barred by time even if the plaintiff was related to Jawahar Singh as alleged by him. As regards the 1901 will the District Judge held that the original will was in possession of the plaintiff or was lost and its secondary evidence was admissible. The execution of the will and his disposing mind were held to have been proved by the certified copy of the will and the statement of the Sub-Registrar who had registered it. Construing the will the District Judge held that Mst. Bhagwan Kaur was only a limited owner, that She could not transfer the. property to the plaintiff, and that the defendants were entitled to the property under the will of Jawahar Singh. On these findings the District Judge dismissed the appeal end the plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) ONLY two points have been urged on behalf of the appellant before us. (1) That there is no proof that Jawahar Singh executed the will or that it was validly executed or attested, and (2) that construing the will Mst. Bhagwan Kaur became full owner of the property and could gift or bequeath it to Mehtab Singh appellant.