The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence in establishing paternity and legitimacy, and the court's discretion to discard a will based on suspicious circumstances and lack of mention of legal heirs.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order, above mentioned two regular second appeals arising out of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are being disposed of. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter being referred with the same status as before the trial Court.

2. The facts necessary to adjudicate the present lis are that the plaintiff-Charanpreet Kaur @ Priti and her two minor sons namely Rajat Kumar and Sumit Kumar had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia stating that plaintiff No.1 is widow and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are minor sons of late Sushil Kumar. The suit qua plaintiffs No.2 and 3 was filed through their mother (plaintiff No.1). It was stated that Sushil Kumar was joint owner in possession of the property along with defendants No.1 and 2 as fully detailed in head note A of the plaint. Phool Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and grand-father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 was joint owner in possession of the land as described in head note B of the plaint. Phool Singh had died, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as legal heirs and the property in the hands of Phool Singh was ancestral property qua the plaintiffs. Sushil Kumar had died on 16.07.1997, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 as his legal heirs. Immediately after the death of Sushil Kumar, mutation of his share was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3.

3. Thereafter, objections were raised by defendants No.1 and 2 and mutation was sent to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, D.R.O., Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri being disputed one. Vide order dated 16.01.2013, Assistant Collector Ist Grade had accepted the objections of defendants No.1 and 2 on the basis of Will alleged to be executed by Sushil Kumar in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. The appeal against the same was stated to be pending before the Collector, Yamuna Nagar.

4. It was further pleaded that the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri is illegal, null, void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. The deceased Sushil Kumar had never executed any Will in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, nor there was any occasion for the same. The Will (if any), is illegal, null, void, forged and fabricated document got prepared by defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with its writer and witnesses and the same has been prepared after the death of Sushil Kumar in order to grab his property. The subsequent mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said order was also stated to be null, void and illegal.

5. Upon notice being served to the defendants, they appeared and filed written statement, controverting the facts stated in the plaint. It was denied by the defendants that plaintiff No.1 was widow of Sushil Kumar and it was further stated that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are not the sons of Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar son of Phool Singh was bachelor and was not married during his lifetime. It was admitted that Sushil Kumar was joint owner in possession of land as detailed and described in head note A of the plaint along with defendants No.2 and 3. It was further admitted that Phool Singh was owner of the property as detailed in head note B of the plaint. Further, it has been stated by the defendants that Phool Singh out of his free will and without any pressure or coercion, had executed a valid Will on 02.05.2002 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, whereby he had bequeathed all his movable and immovable property in their favour and as such, defendants No.1 and 2 have become exclusive owners in possession of the properties held by Phool Singh during his lifetime. It was further pleaded that Sushil Kumar was suffering from liver problem and during his lifetime, he had executed a Will in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on 23.02.1997, whereby he had bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 as they were the only legal heirs of Sushil Kumar (sin