The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of a registered Will and the validity of the mutation based on the Will.

H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Amarjit Singh had brought a suit against his real brother Amrik Singh, seeking a declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land and revenue entries be corrected by deleting name of the defendant qua the suit land besides craving for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

2. As per the version of the plaintiff, the suit land happened to be self-acquired property of Kartar Singh (since dead), father of the parties; during his life time Kartar Singh was being looked after and maintained by the plaintiff and after his death on 22.2.2007, his last rites were also performed by the plaintiff, however, the suit land was mutated by the revenue authorities in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares, which was wrong because defendant had been disinherited by Kartar Singh father of the parties by inserting a notice in daily Newspaper Des Sewak on 17.12.2006 and the plaintiff alone had been cultivating the suit land during the life time of Kartar Singh; the defendant being a head strong person threatened to occupy the suit land. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff had brought the suit in question.

3. On notice the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections, on merits contending that Kartar Singh father of the parties vide a registered Will dated 9.10.2002 had bequeathed the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and defendant in equal shares and after his death, it was rightly mutated in favour of the parties on the basis of the Will. Refuting the other assertions, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of property in dispute? OPP.

2. Whether defendant is trying to occupy the suit land by illegal and forceful means? OPP.

3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is maintainable? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action? OPP.

5. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts? OPD.

6. Whether defendant is entitled to special costs of Rs.15,000/- under Section 35-A CPC? OPD.

7. Whether deceased Kartar Singh executed Will dated 9.10.2002 during his life time in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant regarding entire property in equal share to the extent of ½ share each.? OPD.

8. Relief.

5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

During the course of his evidence, the plaintiff got his statement recorded as PW1 besides examining Shiv Dayal Singh as PW2, Rajesh Kumar, Stamp Vendor as PW3, Karam Kaur as PW4, Mrs. Santosh Subharwal, Notary Public, Hoshiarpur as PW5 and Malkiat Singh and PW6.

With that the evidence of the plaintiff stood closed.

In rebuttal, the defendant examined Kuldeep Singh, Registration Clerk as DW1, Dharminder Pal Singh as DW2 and defendant himself stepped into the witness box as DW3.

With that the evidence of the defendant got concluded.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court of Addl Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Dasuya decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, issues No.3 and 4 were also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant; issues No.5 to 7 were decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. As a result of findings on issues, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 4.7.2013.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2015 dismissed the same upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court..

8. Still feeling dissatisf