A Will, even if not registered, must be conclusively proven to establish inheritance rights, and unexplained delays in filing can bar claims.

JUDGMENT :

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and performa defendants/respondents No. 4 to 12 herein, are owners in possession and successors to the estate of Sohail Singh @ Rawel Singh on the basis of his Will dated 18.12.1982, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are the ‘plaintiffs’; and the respondents are the ‘defendants’.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration that plaintiffs along with proforma defendant no.4 Pritam Kaur are owners in possession and have succeeded the estate of Sohail Singh at Village Manakpur and Urna as per Will dated 18.12.1982; and suit for declaration that whole estate of Rawail Singh @ Sohail Singh is succeeded by plaintiffs & proforma defendant Pritam Kaur and defendants no.1 to 3 have no concern with the same; and suit for declaration that revenue record showing defendants no.1 to 3 as successor to the extent of 1/3 share in land situated at village Manakpur and Urna is illegal and liable to be set aside; and the mutation No.9905 is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside; along with suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants no.1 to 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land and from alienating, mortgaging or transferring the suit land.

4. The brief facts as put forth by the plaintiffs in the plaint are that Sohail Singh was owner and in possession of suit land as described in the plaint. The plaintiffs and defendants are sons, daughters and widow of Rawal Singh @ Sohail Singh. During his life time Sohail Singh conducted marriages of his daughters/defendants No.2&3 and spent huge amount on their marriages. Defendant No.1 used to quarrel with Rawel Singh and never looked after him. That is why Sohail Singh did not want to give any share to him. Plaintiffs along with performa defendant no.4-Pritam Kaur served Rawel Singh during his life time. Said Rawel Singh also executed his Will dated 18.12.1982 in the presence of witnesses Jagtar Singh son of Sampuran Singh, and Numberdar Jasmer Singh of village Manakpur which is his last and valid Will. Said Will was found in the last month when plaintiffs and performa defendant were cleaning the kothri. Said Rawel Singh died on 4.4.2004. Defendants No.1&2 never served their father and this fact is in the knowledge of whole of the village rather defendant No.1 insulted and quarrel with Rawel Singh. Performa defendant Pritam Kaur was not available and plaintiffs have no cause of action against performa defendants No.5 to 12 but due to legal technicality they are pleaded as performa defendants in the present suit. It is further stated in the plaint that Defendant no.1 in collusion with Halka Patwari and other revenue officials got mutated the suit property of the share of Sohail Singh in equal share in the name of plaintiffs, performa defendant Pritam Kaur, and defendants No.1 to 3 which are liable to be set aside. Plaintiffs requested defendants No.1 to 3 to get corrected the revenue record but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of plaintiffs. Hence, this suit.

5. Upon notice, defendant No.1/respondent No.1 herein, appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit by stating that the suit was time