SWARAN SINGH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is one of those unfortunate cases, where sons have been litigating with their father over a property, which he got through his father, by way of a testamentary instrument (Will). An endeavour was made by this Court to have the dispute amicably resolved. Regretfully, for reasons best known to the petitioners herein (sons), no ice could be broken. Hence, the present judgment.

(2.) IN this petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, plaintiffs -petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have assailed the order dated 24.11.2012, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2011, titled as Arjun Singh v. Swaran Singh & another. In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, trial Court vide order dated 26.5.2011, passed in CMA No. 93 of 2010, titled as Arjun Singh v. Swaran Singh & another, directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit property during trial. It is this order, which was assailed by the defendants -respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), before the lower appellate Court. Finding favour with the submission of the defendants, plaintiffs' application, filed under the provisions of Section 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands dismissed. Also, application filed by the defendants, restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession, during trial, stands allowed.

(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY , plaint does not disclose that parties are governed by the Mitakshra System of Law. Plaintiffs concealed that property belonging to Dal Singh did not devolve upon Arjun Singh by way of succession but by way of a testamentary instrument, i.e. registered Will dated 4.5.1964. As is borne out from the pleadings, suit land was originally allotted to Smt. Sanduri Devi by the State of Punjab. She willed it in favour of Dal Singh. After her death, Will was executed and mutation effected in the revenue record. Even Dal Singh during his life time, executed a registered Will dated 4.5.1964 in favour of his son Arjun, who also got the same executed and the property stood mutated in his name in the year 1971. All these facts have not been disputed by the plaintiffs.