BHOLI DEVI Vs. CHANAN KAUR THRU LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS arises from the recommendations made by the Commissioner, Kangra division in revision no. 17/96.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that Sh. Sohan Singh s/o Sh. Natha Singh expired on 30.8.1994. The -concerned Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, conducted certain enquires and vide order dated 25.2.1995 held that the will produced at the time of the mutation bequeathing Sh. Sohan Singh's estate to one Smt. Bholi Devi was not genuine and that the deceased respondent being wife was to inherit the property. The Assistant Collector has further reasoned that since the present petitioner No. 1 Smt. Bholi Devi had served the deceased as a servant and was dependent upon him therefore half of the estate of Sh. Sohan Singh should be given to her while the remaining would go to the respondent (deceased) Mutations were sanctioned accordingly. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present deceased respondent had preferred an appeal before the Collector Una sub -division who vide order dated 12.12.1995 allowed the appeal and modified the order: of the Assistant Collector to the effect that the entire estate of Sh. Sohan Singh would go to the respondent only. The petitioner No. 1 had thereupon filed a revision before the Commissioner Kangra division who has reached the conclusion that the orders of the lower courts are based on a wrong application of the law and need to be set aside and has recommended accordingly.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent began his arguments by raising the issue whether a revision can lie against a revision to which he himself answered by saying that it cannot. Further learned counsel stated that Sh. Sohan Singh died issueless and thereupon the entire estate had devolved his legally wedded wife Smt. Chanan Kaur who was also getting pension from HPSEB as widow of Sh. Sohan Singh. He further emphasized the present petitioner No. 1 is not the wife of said Sh. Sohan Singh. At the maximum, she had the right of maintenance. As regards the question whether Sh. Sohan Singh had executed a valid will in favour of the petitioner No.1, learned counsel clarified that there is a case regarding this before the civil court. The will was also sent to a handwriting expert and has been reported to be a forgery; the case in, pending decision. Learned counsel stated that there is not even an iota of evidence that Sh. Sohan Singh ever executed any will in favour of petitioner No. 1. or she had any legal status. The recommendations of the Commissioner should not be accepted.