Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shila Devi Alias Sheela Devi vs Ram Datt on 2 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044933
118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3645-2023
2023 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 02.04.2025
.2025
Shila Devi Alias Sheela Devi ....Appellant
Versus
Ram Datt .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate,
Mr. Vaibhav Bhargav, Advocate and
Ms. Manisha Dhir, Advocate for the appellant.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated
20.07.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing the appeal filed by the appella
appellant-plaintiff
plaintiff against
the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Court of learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Division) Amloh vide which the suit filed by the
appellant-plaintiff
plaintiff for declaration was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred
as per their original status.
3. The plaintiff (Shila
(Shila Devi Alias Sheela Devi) instituted a suit for
declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of residential
house to the extent of half share (fully described in the plaint) situated in
Guru Ki Nagri, Mandi Gobindgarh, District
District Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘suit property’) on the basis of a registered Will dated
01.06.2006 duly executed by Ram Kaur in favour of the plaintiff and son of
defendant namely Shivam.
Shivam. A further declaration was sought declaring tthe
he
mutation dated 21.04.2007 regarding the estate of Ram Kaur sanctioned in
favour of the defendant on the basis of Will dated 20.03.1996 as being
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:08:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044933
RSA-3645-2023 (O&M) -2-
illegal, null and void. Consequential relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from ejecting or dispossessing the plaintiff from
her peaceful possession over the suit property was sought.
4. The case set up was that Ram Kaur had executed a registered
Will dated 01.06.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and son of defendant namely
Shivam. After the same, the plaintiff and defendant started living in half
portion each of the suit property. The defendant threatened the plaintiff many
times that he would eject the plaintiff from the suit property and alleged that
Ram Kaur had executed a Will dated 20.03.1996 in his favour. It was averred
that the said Will, if any, was a forged and fabricated document. It was
averred that relations of defendant were never cordial with Ram Kaur and
the defendant used to beat her up as he was addicted to various vices. The
plaintiff, being ‘Jethani’ (husband’s brother’s wife) had been serving Ram
Kaur and in view of the services rendered by her, Ram Kaur executed her
last registered Will dated 01.06.2006. Since the defendants tried to
dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, the suit was filed.
5. The suit was opposed by the defendant. In the written statement,
certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, cause of action,
estoppel, locus standi, the plaintiff not having approached the Court with
clean hands etc. were raised. It was averred that no Will dated 01.06.2006
had been executed by Ram Kaur and that the said Will was a forged and
fabricated document which had been created four days before the death of
Ram Kaur. It was averred that in her last days, Ram Kaur usually remained
sick and was not in her sound disposing state of mind and was suffering from
various diseases. It was averred that the plaintiff was a stranger and not
‘Jethani’ of Ram Kaur, since the father of the defendant had no brother and,
therefore, there was no question of her executing a Will in favour of a
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:08:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044933
RSA-3645-2023 (O&M) -3-
stranger. It was the defendant who had been serving his mother in old age
and as a result of the same, Will dated 20.03.1996 was executed.
6. It was averred that the said Will dated 20.03.1996 had been
scribed by a regular deed writer after which the marginal witnesses had
signed. The Will was, thereafter, got registered. It was averred that the said
Will is the last Will of Ram Kaur and on the basis of the same, mutation had
duly been entered. It was averred that, in fact, the plaintiff was a tenant under
the defendant and had not paid rent.
7. In the replication, averments made in the written statement were
denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as
claimed? OPP
3. Whether present suit is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to court with clean
hands and has suppressed true and material facts? OPD
5. Whether suit is based upon false, frivolous, vexatious
facts? OPD
6. Whether plaintiff stopped by her own act and conduct
from filing the present suit? OPD
7. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi
to file the present suit? OPD
8. Whether suit of plaintiff is malafide? OPD
9. Relief.”
9. Parties led their respective evidence.
10. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the
appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018 was also
dismissed, leading to the filing of the present appeal.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 19-04-2025 01:08:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044933
RSA-3645-2023 (O&M) -4-
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that
impugned judgments are not sustainable. He has referred to the Will
(Ex. P-1) which, according to him, was executed by Ram Kaur in favour of
the plaintiff and son of the defendant. He has also referred to the Will (Ex.
D-2) which has been set up by the defendants. Learned counsel has
submitted that the Will set up by the defendant had not been proved in
accordance with law as none of the marginal witnesses was examined.
12.1 Learned counsel has referred to the entire oral and documentary
evidence and has made strenuous efforts to convince the Court that the
judgments passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not
sustainable. Learned counsel has also referred to the impugned judgments
and has submitted that the same deserve to be set aside.
13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant and have perused the same but find the same to be devoid of
merit.
14. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled
proposition of law that in Punjab & Haryana, second appeals preferred are to
be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and
not under Section 100 CPC. Reference in this regard can be made to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Pankajakshi (Dead) through
LRs and others Versus Chandrika and Others’ (2016) (6) SCC 157
followed by judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (Kirori &
Sarvinder substantial question of law’s judgments). Relying upon the law
laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no substantial question of law is
required to be framed and this Court shall proceed to answer the question
which arises for consideration.
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 19-04-2025 01:08:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044933
RSA-3645-2023 (O&M) -5-
15. The reliance of the plaintiff was upon Will dated 01.06.2006
(Ex. P-1). No doubt, the plaintiff was able to prove the due execution of the
said Will as she examined the attesting witnesses Harbans Singh Lamberdar
and Rulda Ram as PW-4 and PW-6 respectively besides examining the deed
writer Neeraj Kumar Bansal as PW-5. The plaintiff herself stepped into the
witness box as PW-1 and deposed about the Will having been executed in
her favour. However, the Will was rightly found to be shrouded by
suspicious circumstances for the following reasons:
15.1 The Will was allegedly executed by Ram Kaur on 01.06.2006
whereas Ram Kaur expired four days after the execution of the said Will.
This in itself is a suspicious circumstance coupled with the fact that it has
come in the evidence that the plaintiff Shila Devi Alias Sheela Devi was
accompanying Ram Kaur when the Will was executed and registered. The
mere presence of the beneficiary of the Will at the time of execution and
registration of the Will makes the Will shrouded by suspicious
circumstances.
15.2 The plaintiff claimed to be the brother’s wife of the husband of
Ram Kaur i.e. Jethani. However, she could not prove the relationship. On the
contrary, it came on record that the father of the defendant was not having
any brother. The defendant produced ration cards (Ex. D-2 and Ex.D-3) to
prove the said fact. Further, the plaintiff is said to be wife of Teja Singh, son
of Ram Singh whereas Ram Dutt was the son of Gurdev Singh and not Ram
Singh. The name of grandfather of Ram Dutt was Mela Singh. The
relationship, therefore, did not stood proved. There was no mention of the
Will dated 20.03.1996 (Ex.D-2) in the Will dated 01.06.2006 (Ex.P-1). This
Will mentioned about some other Will dated 01.05.2006 stated to have been
executed by Ram Kaur in favour of her grandsons Shivam, Sahil and Jatin.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 19-04-2025 01:08:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044933
RSA-3645-2023 (O&M) -6-
This Will has not seen the light of the day. It is also strange that while in the
Will (Ex. P-1), Ram Kaur initially states that she had executed a Will in
favour of her grandsons namely Shivam, Sahil and Jatin but she
subsequently allegedly executed the Will dated 01.06.2006 in favour of the
plaintiff and Shivam, her grandson. No reason was given as to why the other
grandsons were being left out and why Shivam was being included again.
15.3 The plaintiff was not able to prove that she was residing Ram
Kaur or that she was serving her.
16. Under the circumstances, both Courts rightly held that the Will
dated 01.06.2006 was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. As regards the
Will dated 20.03.1996, no doubt the attesting witnesses were not examined,
though, the deed writer Neeraj Kumar Bansal was examined. However, it
was the plaintiff who had alleged that the Will dated 20.03.1996 was a
forged and fabricated document and, therefore, the onus was upon her to
prove the same. In any case, no issue was framed to this effect, though an
issue was framed with regard to the declaration, the onus to prove which was
on the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, miserably failed to prove the same.
17. Both Courts returned concurrent findings which, in the
considered opinion of this Court, are not liable to be interfered with.
Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is
dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
02.04.2025 JUDGE
Prince Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 19-04-2025 01:08:46 :::
[ad_1]
Source link