The onus to prove the alleged forgery and fabrication of the Will lies with the appellant, and the court may decline the prayer for leading additional evidence if the onus was not discharged.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - By way of judgment and decree dated 19.05.2016, the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against the said decree was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court on 26.09.2019. One of the defendants is thus now in Regular Second Appeal before this Court challenging the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

2. Plaintiff Harjinder Singh filed a suit for declaration, joint possession and permanent injunction in respect of the property duly detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as, 'suit property'). As per the pleaded case, previously one Sukhdev Singh son of Sarwan Singh was a share-holder in the properties described at letters 'A' and 'B' of the plaint as per jamabandi for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The plaintiff claimed share of said Sukhdev Singh on the basis of a Will dated 27.05.2013 Ex.P2 which was executed in his favour by Sukhdev Singh. It was claimed that since the relationship of Sukhdev Singh with the defendants (defendant No.1 being mother, defendant No.2 widow, defendant No.3 son and defendant No.4 daughter of said Sukhdev Singh, defendants No.5 and 6 being widow and son respectively of the predeceased son of Sukhdev Singh) was not cordial, he had executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff in view of services rendered by him. It was further pleaded that during the lifetime of Sukhdev Singh, defendant No.1 had instituted a civil suit under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC titled as 'Gurdev Kaur vs. Sukhdev Singh', which was decided on 08.11.2013. Sukhdev Singh had disowned his wife defendant No.2, son defendant No.3 and his daughter-in-law from his entire movable and immovable properties and had even given an affidavit dated 26.05.2011 duly attested from the Executive Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. However, after the death of Sukhdev Singh, mutation No.533 regarding the suit property had been sanctioned by the revenue authorities in favour of the defendants on the basis of natural succession after ignoring the Will dated 27.05.2013 which stood executed in favour of the plaintiff. As the defendants refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff to the suit property, the plaintiff instituted the suit in question.

3. In their written statement, the defendants questioned the legality of the Will dated 27.05.2013. It was claimed that Sukhdev Singh had been residing with his family i.e. the defendants. It was urged that in fact the plaintiff was a total stranger to the family and hence there was no occasion for Sukhdev Singh to execute the alleged Will in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants asserted that mutation No.533 had rightly been sanctioned by the revenue authorities in their favour on the basis of natural succession. It was also claimed that the suit property was ancestral, coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property of Sukhdev Singh as he had inherited the same from his father Sarwan Singh who in turn had inherited it from his father Kartar Singh. In the circumstances, Sukhdev Singh was not even competent to execute any Will regarding the suit property.

4. Both the Courts below, on the basis of material and other evidence led, concurrently concluded that the plaintiff Harjinder Singh had been able to successfully establish the due execution of Will in his favour.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant has vehemently argued that the Courts below failed to appreciate that since the suit property was ancestral and Joint Hindu Family property, Sukhdev Singh was not competent to execute any Will with regard to the same. Still further, he has argued that the courts below also failed to take into account that mutation No.533 regarding the suit properties of Sukhdev Singh had been rightly sanctioned on the basis of natural succession in favour of the defendants vide orde