VIDYA DEVI Vs. TARLOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellants filed a suit against Tarlok Chand and Hem Raj for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property and in the alternative for possession thereof. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit land, as detailed in the plaint, was owned and possessed by their father, Dayal Singh alias Dayala, who expired on 17.4.1993. According to the plaintiffs they were the daughters and sole heirs of Dayal Singh and are owners in possession of their father's share. It was also alleged that the defendants in connivance with the scribe and marginal witnesses had forged and prepared a fictitious will dated 2.4.1993 of their father. It was specifically alleged that Dayal Singh used to sign in English and there was no question of his thumb marking a will. It was also alleged that the thumb impression on the will was not of Dayal Singh. The learned trial court upheld the contentions of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit . It held that the will had not been properly proved and there were many suspicious circumstances surrounding the will.

(2.) AN appeal was filed by the defendants in the court of learned District Judge, Kangra, who vide the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the learned trial court. The lower appellate court has allowed an application under order 41 Rule 27 CPC moved by the defendants that the thumb impression on the will be compared with the thumb impressions available in the pension book of Dayal Singh and on his service book.

(3.) THEREAFTER the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC before the learned trial court praying that the original record (PPO) concerning Dayal Singh be summoned and sent alongwith the will to the expert for comparison of the thumb impression. This application was rejected vide a detailed order passed by the learned trial court on 20.9.1996.