The judgment highlighted the non-binding nature of foreign judgments that do not conform to the law applicable in India, emphasizing the statutory requirements for a valid Will under Indian law.

JUDGMENT :

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

1. This is the second appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees, passed by the courts below, whereby; his suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendants No.8 to 12 are the owners in possession of the suit land, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the contesting defendants No.1 to 7 from selling, alienating or transferring the suit land, was dismissed.

2. For the convenience, the parties are being referred to herein as the plaintiff and the defendants; as they were described in the original suit.

3. The brief facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the plaintiff had filed above said suit asserting therein that Dewa Singh, the father of the plaintiff and predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the suit, was the owner in possession of the suit property. Out of natural love and affection qua the plaintiff and defendants No.8 to 12, the deceased Dewa Singh had executed a Will dated 04.11.1976 in their favour. The said Will is lying on the record of probate proceedings undertaken in the High Court of Fiji. The probate was duly granted by upholding the above said Will vide judgment and order dated 11.02.1981; rendered by the High Court of Fiji. After the death of Dhanti, the wife of Dewa Singh, on 12.03.1989; the entire estate of Dewa Singh has devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants No.8 to 12 equally. The defendants No.1 to 7 have managed the entry of mutation of inheritance of Estate of Dewa Singh without notice to the plaintiff or other beneficiaries of the Will. Hence, the mutation to that effect, being against the Will executed by Dewa Singh, is non est. Earlier, the wife of one of sons of Dewa Singh, namely Malkiat Singh; had filed a suit for declaration and injunction qua the suit land, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, it was asserted that the plaintiff and the defendants No.8 to 12 are the exclusive owners in possession of the estate left by Dewa Singh. The other defendants are trying to dispose of the said land and interfering in possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was instituted.

4. On notice, only defendant No.7, who is wife of the pre- deceased son of Dewa Singh, contested the suit by taking a preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On merits, it was asserted that the plaintiff was not in possession of any part of the suit property. All the necessary parties have not been impleaded as party to the suit. On merits, it was asserted by the defendant No.7 that the common ancestor of the parties was Kanhaiya Singh who had five sons, including Dewa Singh. Dewa Singh had gone abroad and never returned to India during his life time. Even the exact date of his death is not know to the parties. All the sons of Kanhaiya Singh, except Dewa Singh, having gone abroad, and similarly all the sons of Dewa Singh also having gone abroad, it was only Darshan Singh; who alone was managing the affairs of the suit property in India. Darshan Singh was being looked after and served by defendant No.7 as she was not granted visa by British Government earlier and therefore, could not join here husband Malkiat Singh abroad. Darshan Singh had bequeathed entire estate in favour of defendant No.7 by way of registered Will. Still further it was denied that any Will was executed by Dewa Singh. The Will being set up by the plaintiff is totally forted and fabricated. Hence, the dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. To prove their respective assertions, the parties led their evidence. Plaintiff Karnail Singh himself appeared as PW-1 and reiterated his assertion made in the plaint. He also placed on record the alleged copy of the order dated 11.02.1981 passed by the High Court of Fiji in probate proceedings; qua the estate of Dewa Singh; to show that the estate was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers Pakhar Singh, Bha