PHOOL CHAND Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to appreciate the facts of this case, the following pedigree-table deserves to be noticed:-KALU RAM ______________|________ _ | | Bipat Ram Jhauo Ram | | Kanhya Lal Duni Chand (died in 1967) | | Amrit Lal Tara Chand (plaintiff) (died in 1947) =padma Wati Kanhaya Lal owned a house in Ferozopore Cantt. and is alleged to have made will dated l5th August, 1966, in favour of Phool Chand, his wives' brother, as his only son Tara Chand had died long before in the year 1947 end his two wives, who were sisters, had also predeceased him. Kanhaya Lal died on 22nd of February, 1967.

(2.) PHOOL Chand, legatee from Kanhaya Lal filed a petition for ejectment under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on 1st June, 1971, against' Amrit Lal, grandson of father's brother of Kanhaya Lal, from a portion of the house which he was occupying. When Amrit Lal came to know of the ejectment petition, he filed a suit on 10th of February 1972, against Phool Chand for a declaration that he was owner in possession of the house and denied the tenancy as also the will set up by Phool Chand and claimed a permanent injunction against him not to interefere in his possession. It is not' disputed that Phool Chand was in possession of no part of the house whereas Amrit Lal was in possession of a part' of the house. Phool Chand contested the suit and set up the will dated l5th Aug. 1966, and claimed ownership of the house thereunder. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 8th March, 1973, dismissed the suit which was maintained by the first appellate Court on 24th of Dec. 1973, and on second appeal by Amrit Lal to this Court, a learned single Judge allowed his appeal on 27th of October, 1975, and granted him a decree that his title over the house is good against Phool Chand except the true owner and further granted him a decree for perpetual injunction restraining Phool Chand from interfering with his possession over the house. While allowing the appeal, the learned single Judge found that the execution of the will set up by Phool Chand was not proved as none of the attesting witnesses nor the scribe thereof was produced to prove the same. In fact', the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove the execution of the will. It was further held that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances as the same was alleged to have been executed of Ferozepore Cantt where regular petition writers were available, it was unregistered and did not see the light of the day for over four years till late 1970, when it was set up in a suit against Smt. Padma Wati widow of the predeceased son of Ranhaya Lal. It was also found that Amrit Lal was proved to be the first cousin's son of Ranhaya La1 It was further found that' since Amrit Lal was in possession of pert of the house, he was entitled to a declaration and injunction on the basis of possessory title which deserved to be protected against the whole world except the true owner.

(3.) FEELING dissatisfied with the decision of the learned single Judge Phool Chand defendant has come up in Letters Patent appeal with leave of the learned Single Judge.