The validity of a Will and the timeliness of challenging property mutations are crucial in inheritance disputes.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant praying for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff/appellant, being widow and daughters of Shamsher Singh (pre-deceased son) are entitled to inherent of 1/3rd share in the estate of Kishan Chand, father of Shamsher Singh and defendant No.1 and grand-father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The lower Court record has been requisitioned.

3. The case as set up in the plaint is that Kishan Chand has three sons, namely, Jeet Ram, Jagir Singh and Shamsher Singh, who pre-deceased leaving behind the plaintiff to be widow and daughters as his only legal heirs. Kishan Chand died on 28.10.1979 leaving behind defendant No.1-Jagir Singh and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 Jeet Ram (sons).

4. It is further submitted in the suit that on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 4.10.1979, mutation No.404 dated 7.4.1981 was wrongly and illegally sanctioned in the name of defendant No.1 to the extent of 2/3rd share and in favour of Jeet Ram to the extent of 1/3rd share by ignoring the plaintiffs.

5. In the plaint, the Will is challenged on the following grounds:-

'3. That the defendant No.1 and his brother Jeet Ram taking undue advantage of the minority of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 got the mutation of estate of Kishan Chand sanctioned on the basis of alleged oral Will dated 4.10.1979. The mutation No.404 dated 7.4.1981 was wrongly and illegally sanctioned in the name of defendant No.1 to the extent of 2/3rd share and Jeet Ram to the extent of 1/3rd share on the basis of alleged oral will of 4.10.1979. The alleged oral Will dated 4.10.1979 is a waste paper fabricated by the defendant No.1 and Jeet Ram in orer to grab the rights and interest of the plaintiffs in the estate of Kishan Chand to the extent of 1/3rd share (being heirs of predeceased son Shamsher Singh). So the said mutation No.404 is illegal and liable to be ignored qua the rights of the plaintiffs in the estate left behind by Kishan Chand.

4. That Jeet Ram has also died about 15 years back and he is succeeded by defendants No.2 and 3 who are his sons.

5. That as Kishan Chand died intestate without executing any Will so the plaintiffs are co-owners to the extent of 1/3rd share in the estate left behind by Kishan Chand being heirs of predeceased son Shamsher Singh. The alleged oral Will is a bogus and fabricated document after the death of Kishan Chand."

6. The respondent-defendant contested the suit on the ground that Kishan Chand during his life time executed a Will dated 4.10.1979 which was scribed by the Deed-Writer and attested by the witnesses. It is further stated that mutation No.404 was duly sanctioned by the renenue authorities on the basis of the said Will and the suit is barred by limitation. It is also submitted that two acres of land was sold at the time of marriage of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and, therefore, they have no right or title over the suit property.

7. Defendant No.4 to 7 also contested the suit on the ground that they have purchased a part of the land after the mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

8. The trial Court framed the following issues :-

'1. Whether plaintiffs are owners to the extent of 1/3rd share in the estate of Kishan Chand deceased? OPP

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

3. Whether suit is barred by limitation ? OPD

4. Whether Kishan Chand during his life time executed a Will dated 4.10.1979. If so, its effect? OPD.

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and joint possession as prayed for? OPP

6. Relief.:"

9. The plaintiff/appellant led their evidence and plaintiff Labh Kaur appeared as PW1 and closed their evidence.

10. The defendants examined Amar Singh as DW1, Budh Ram as DW2, defendant Pritam Ram himself appeared as DW3. One Dharam Singh was examined as DW4 and defendant Jagir Singh himself appeared as DW5.

11. The p