The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of gift deeds, the effect of the execution of a will on the same day, and the validity of an adoption deed.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - This judgment shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA No.11 of 2010 and RSA No.4188 of 2008. In fact, RSA No.11 of 2010 has been listed for hearing after Hon'ble the Supreme Court remanded the case vide order dated 01.08.2014. The operative part of the order reads as under:-

"In our considered opinion, the findings of the trial Court, which we have noted above disclose that issue no.3 was held in favour of the appellant and in the said circumstances, there was a substantial question of law required to be examined by the High Court in the second appeal as raised before it at the instance of the appellant. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment impugned in this appeal, we remit the matter back to the High Court for framing appropriate substantial questions of law and decide the second appeal on merits. We hasten to add that we have not stated anything on merits of the issues raised in the Second Appeal and the High Court may decide the Second Appeal on its own.

In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed."

2. Although, as per the Hon'ble subsequent Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs. v. Chandrika and others, 2016(6) SCC 157 , framing of the question of law is not necessary for disposal of the second appeal as in this High Court, second appeals are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, however, this Court would attempt to answer question No.(iv) on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter back.

3. First of all, some facts would be required to be noticed.

4. Jeewan was common ancestor of all the parties to this litigation. He had two sons namely Cheta and Mamraj. Smt. Mankauri (plaintiff in Civil Suit No.442 of 1992) is widow of grandson of Mamraj whereas defendants are great grandsons of Cheta. Smt. Mankauri, the plaintiff executed three registered gift deeds on 23.01.1980 vide gift deeds Nos.1836, 1837 and 1838 donating/gifting her entire property in favour of the defendants who are great grandsons of Cheta. The entry of the gift deeds was made in the revenue record by entering and sanctioning the mutation Nos.583, 584 and 585.

5. The plaintiff-Smt. Mankauri filed a suit for declaration on 20.07.1992 challenging the gift deeds on the ground that such gift deeds got executed by fraud.

6. On the other hand, defendants contested the suit. It may be significant to note at this stage that Smt. Mankauri is alleged to have adopted the son of Kuldeep Singh who was great-grandson of Mamraj in the year 1992. A registered Adoption Deed was executed by her on 26.05.1992. The suit was filed by Smt. Mankauri through Sh. Kuldeep, whose son Ajay was adopted by her.

7. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence held that the execution of the gift deeds is proved and the plaintiff-Smt. Mankauri has miserably failed to lead any evidence to prove that the gift deeds were result of fraud. The relevant findings of the trial Court in this regard, are as under:-

"11. The onus to prove issues No.2 and 3 was on the defendants. Defendants while examining scribe DW1 Karam Chand have got proved gift deeds Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 and Will Ex.D4. They have also examined Mula Ram DW3 one of the attesting witness to these documents. It has been pleaded that Will No.114 dated 23.1.1980 has been cancelled by Mankauri, through registered documents of 15.6.1992 but no positive evidence by producing and proving documents in this regard has been adduced by the plaintiff. The execution of impugned gift deeds No.1836 to 1838 dated 23.1.1980 has been duly proved by the defendants. The main grounds to challenge these was fraud and misrepresentation but plaintiff has miserably failed to show that any fraud and misrepresentation was practised while executing these documents because admittedly when these documents were executed then she was accompanied by her brother Dhanna Ram. Moreover in the plaint it has been stated that she remained in Dadri for t