RAVINDER KAUR Vs. HARDYAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a revision petition, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 29.11.1996, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, in a case of Mutation No. 7662 of Village Chaunda, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur regarding inheritance of one Balwant Singh son of Ishar Singh, who had died on 18.7.1991.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case are, that, consequent upon the death of Balwant Singh, who had died without leaving any widow or any issue behind him, Ravinder Kaur daughter of Joginder Singh had claimed testamentary succession, on the basis of an unregistered Will, dated 25.9.1989, propounded by her, which was contested by one Hardyal Singh, brother of deceased Balwant Singh. As a contested Mutation No. 7662, of Village Chaunda, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, was decided by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malerkotala, who had sanctioned the same in favour of Ravinder Kaur, on the basis of an unregistered Will, by concluding that the execution of the unregistered Will, stood fully proved with the testimony of the scribe and the attesting witnesses, as per his order dated 1.12.1992, while rejecting the claim of Hardyal Singh, demanding inheritance of the deceased-Balwant Singh, being a natural heir. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malerkotla, Hardyal Singh on and Inderjit Kaur and Jasbir Kaur, daughters of Ishar Singh, had filed an appeal before the Collector, Sangrur, which was accepted; order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malerkotla, dated 1.12.1992, was set aside and sanctioning of this mutation, in favour of the appellants', as natural heirs of the deceased, was ordered as per the Collector's Order dated 26.11.1993. Against the Collector's order, Ravinder Kaur had filed an appeal dated 1.3.1994, before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, which was also rejected as per order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 29.11.1996.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 have been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, that the present petition has no merit and the same deserve to be rejected.