LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-392

RAVINDER SINGH Vs. PARMINDER KAUR & OTHERS

Decided On May 10, 2018
RAVINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
Parminder Kaur And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the order dated 6.3.2017 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application moved by the petitionerdefendant for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence regarding Will dated 15.11.2000, has been rejected.

(2.) Mr.Gurbir Singh Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitionerdefendant submitted that the respondent-plaintiffs instituted the suit for possession of 2/3 share of the house, i.e., the suit property regarding estate of Gurbachan Singh, who died on 3.12.2000 and his successors are petitioner Ravinder Singh, deceased Harbans Singh and plaintiff Surinder Kaur in equal shares. According to the averments in the plaint, after the death of Gurbachan Singh, Surinder Kaur became co-sharer with 1/3 share, deceased Harbans Singh with 1/3 share and Ravinder Singh 1/3 share. Defendant was trying to stop the plaintiffs from using their share of the house. When the defendant tried to defeat the right of the plaintiffs, necessity arose to file the suit.

(3.) He further submitted that the petitioner-defendant filed the written statement and contested the suit on various grounds. On merits, it was stated that deceased Gurbachan Singh, during his life time before he died on 3.12.2000 had executed a Will dated 15.11.2000. Even the last rites were performed by the defendant. The written statement is dated 18.11.2015. Replication was filed. However, when the case was pending adjudication, an application dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure P-5 colly) for leading secondary evidence on behalf of the defendant was submitted, for, the aforementioned Will was misplaced on 8.11.2016. In this regard, a rapat dated 5.12.2016 was lodged regarding the loss of the Will in Sanjh Centre. The indulgence of the Court was sought by enclosing copy of the Will and rapat and self declaration of Navpinder Singh dated 3.12.2016. The aforementioned application was contested by the respondent-plaintiffs by alleging that the Will was forged and fabricated. It was just a concoction.