JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the fact and law recorded by both the Courts below.

2. Suit for declaration, joint possession and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff - Darwara Singh, was dismissed.

3. In the suit, plaintiff challenged the registered Will (Ex.DW-6/A) dated 22.07.1997 executed by his brother-Harpal Singh, who died issueless on 26.07.2008. He further challenged the registered transfer deed No.2205 dated 05.09.2008 executed by Tej Kaur widow of Pritam Singh, who died on 27.01.2011. By way of registered Will, Harpal Singh transferred the rights in his property in favour of Satgur Singh and Balkar Singh (defendants No.2 and 3) respectively, who are sons of his brother-Mohinder Singh. Similarly, Tej Kaur had transferred her rights in the property in favour of defendant No.1- Mohinder Singh, who is the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Plaintiff pleaded that registered Will dated 22.07.1997 and transfer deed dated 05.09.2008 are illegal, null and void.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, although, all the facts have been admitted qua the relation as well as the death of transferor Tej Kaur, who transferred her rights in the property in favour of defendant No.1, however, it is pleaded that the Will in question and the mutation thereupon and also the transfer deed are legally valid, same being registered documents.

5. After going through the pleadings, learned trial Court framed total 8 issues which are reproduced herebelow:-

"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

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

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct?OPD

6. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

7. Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD

7-A Whether Harpal Singh executed a Valid Will dated 22.07.1997 in favour of the defendant no. 2,3, if so, its effect?OPD 2 and 3

7-B Whether Tej Kaur executed a valid transfer deed no. 2205 dated 05.09.2008 in favour of defendant no. 1, if so its effect. OPD no. 1

8. Relief."

6. Both the Courts below have found that the registered Will was executed on 22.07.1997 and Harpal Singh died on 26.07.2008 and during his lifetime, there was never any complaint against the defendants by Harpal Singh or anybody else that their signatures and thumb impressions have been taken forcibly or some fraud was played. It is also observed that Tej Kaur had executed registered transfer deed on 05.09.2008 and she expired on 27.01.2011, but during her lifetime, never any such complaint was moved by anybody.

7. Therefore, taking note of both the documents being registered and the same being valid besides keeping in view section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Not only this, even Courts below have held that the plaintiff himself has failed in bringing any evidence on record to prove his pleadings, although, he has pleaded in his complaint that the Will as well as the transfer deed are all fabricated, illegal, null and void documents, however, also nothing has been pleaded thereafter, that how the said documents can be called as illegal, void or prepared by playing fraud. Even, no evidence to corroborate his allegation has been led on record