The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the genuineness of a Will and the need for timely legal action in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, whereby suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by respondent-plaintiffs was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), whereby appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015, has been dismissed.

2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. Brief facts of the case pleaded by the plaintiffs are that Hardial Singh son of Chuhar Singh common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants did not execute the alleged Will dated 13.12.1973 of his estate. The alleged Will has been forged and fabricated by defendant no.1 - Narinder Singh, defendant no.4 -Davinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh deceased, after the death of their father Hardial Singh as Hardial Singh was of unsound mind before 5 years of his death, who died on 15.12.1973. The alleged Will dated 13.12.1973 does not bear the signatures/thumb marks of Hardial Singh deceased. It is further submitted that plaintiff No.1 Jasbir Singh applied vide letter no. 58 on 23.01.2007 to the copy agency of the concerned revenue official, Kharar for the supply of attested copy of the alleged Will dated 13.12.1973 but as per report dated 23.01.2007 of the concerned official of the revenue authority, it is clear that there is no alleged Will available in the revenue record, since the alleged Will was not executed by Hardial Singh. It is further submitted that Mohinder Singh son of Hardial Singh was adopted during the life time of Hardial Singh by father of Tej Kaur. Tej Kaur was wife of Hardial Singh, who died about 20 years back. Therefore, Mohinder Singh has no share in the suit land i.e. 209 Kanal 3 Marla which was owned by Hardial Singh. It has been further submitted that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 inherited 3/16 share i.e. 39 Kanal 4 Marla in equal share after the death of their mother Pritam Kaur, whereas, plaintiffs No. 4 to 6 being the daughter and sons of deceased Charan Kaur inherited 1/16 the share i.e. 13 Kanal 2 Marla of land in equal shares. It has been further submitted that the judgment and decree dated 9.06.1995 passed in the Civil Suit No.633 dated 5.10.1994 by Sub Judge Ist Class, Kharar suffered by defendant No.4-Davinder Singh in favour of defendant No.5-Jasbir Singh and Jagdish Singh (since deceased) husband of defendant No.6-Paramjit Kaur and father of defendant No.7-Gurdeep Singh is illegal, null and void and same is obtained by fraud and also not binding upon the plaintiffs qua their share in the suit land. The alleged decree and judgment came to the knowledge of plaintiffs on 24.01.2007 when they received the copy of jamabandi from the revenue official. The sale deeds dated 7.2.2008 executed in favour of defendant No.8 are also illegal. It has been further submitted that the defendants No.1,4 and Bhupinder Singh (deceased) after the death of Hardial Singh after forging the alleged Will dated 13.12.1973 of the suit land, illegally got the mutation sanctioned in their names in the absence of Pritam Kaur as well as plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and Charan Kaur deceased in connivance with the revenue officials without giving any notice to them. Thus, the alleged mutation is illegal, null and void and does not confer any right, title and interest over the suit land of the share of the plaintiffs qua the defendants.

3. Upon notice, the defendants no. 1 to 7 appeared through their counsel and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objection that plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct. On merits, it has been submitted that Hardial Singh was residing with the defendants and was pleased with the services of defendant No.4 and Bhu