CM No. 9221-C of 2017

Allowed, as prayed for.

Documents namely translated copy of the mutation register and translated copy of the statement of the plaintiff which are part of the trial court record, are permitted to be brought on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 14522-C of 2012

Allowed, as prayed for.

CM No. 14523-C of 2012

This is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence. The appellant wants to produce copy of the application submitted to the Tehsildar and a copy of the sale deed executed by plaintiff during the pendency of the present appeal. An application for additional evidence can be allowed only if the appellant is able to satisfy the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. A reading of the application would show that the application does not meet with the requirements. Hence, application is dismissed.

Main Case

1. The defendant-Lajwanti Devi has filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

2. The facts in brief are that Sant Ram father of the plaintiff and defendant was owner of certain property. Sant Ram did not have son. Sant Ram died in the year 1973. On the death of Sant Ram, mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities on the basis of the registered Will dated 02.01.1962 in favour of the appellant-defendant-Lajwanti.

3. Bhago-respondent, who is, now no more, filed a suit for declaration, joint possession and permanent injunction on 01.07.2004. The plaintiff claimed that her father Sant Ram had died interstate. He never executed the registered Will dated 02.01.1962. She further claimed that mutation No. 730 is illegal, null and void and not binding on her rights. She claimed that she is a simple lady and defendant use to gave her share in the crops. But when in 2004, she refused to pay her share in the crops, therefore, the plaintiff approached the revenue officials and came to know that the defendant is being wrongly shown as exclusive owner. She asserted that she came to know about the sanction of mutation No. 730 dated 19.09.1973 for the first time in the first week of June, 2004, therefore, she claimed that the suit is within limitation.

4. The defendant-appellant contested the suit and submitted that Lt. Sh. Sant Ram had executed a registered Will in her favour on 02.01.1962. She stated that mutation has been rightly sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities on 19.09.1973. She further pleaded that the defendant had spent her whole life serving her parents. She has stated that she use to live with the parents. She denied the payment of any share to plaintiff. She further stated that Sant Ram remained alive for 10/12 years after execution of the Will. She further claimed that the suit was time barred.

5. The learned trial Court after examining the pleadings framed following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2A. Whether Sant Ram executed a valid will dated 2.1.1962? OPD

3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Relief.”

6. The learned trial Court held that the Will is not proved because no attesting witnesses have been examined although certified copy of the Will dated 02.01.1962 bearing Jild No. 342, Wasika No. 1, has been produced and Pushpinder Kaur, Registry Clerk has been examined as DW-1. However, in the absence of examination of the attesting witnesses or compliance of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, the Will is not proved.

7. However, the learned trial Court recorded that mutation was sanctioned in the name of the defendant-appellant in the year 1973 on the basis of the registered Will. The learned trial Court further found that it i