The court ruled that a registered Will has precedence over an unregistered, disputed Will, particularly when substantial doubts exist regarding the latter's authenticity.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction regarding property in dispute filed by plaintiffs Ramesh Kumar and another (appellants herein) was decreed by the trial Court of Id. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Abohar vide judgment & decree dated 11.03.2013. However, the appeal filed by contesting defendants No.l Ravi Kant (respondent No.l herein) was allowed by the First Appellate Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Fazilka vide his judgment dated 03.01.2014, thus dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. It is undisputed that Sh. Parmanand was the owner of the property in dispute detailed in the head note of the plaint. He died on 12.03.2005. He had four sons and three daughters. These seven children are party to this litigation, as two of the brothers namely, Ramesh Kumar & Naresh Kumar (plaintiffs - appellants) filed the suit against their two other brothers namely Ravi Kant & Vijay Kumar, and three sisters namely Krishana, Santosh & Asha, who were impleaded as defendants N: 1 to 5.

4.1 According to the plaintiffs, during his lifetime, Sh. Parmanand executed a Will dated 09.06.2004, which was registered on 22.06.2004, through which he bequeathed his property to the two plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 Vijay. Based on this Will, the plaintiffs, along with Defendant No. 2, claim to have become the rightful owners in possession of the suit property. However, Defendant No. 1 Ravi Kant, is alleged to have fraudulently prepared another Will dated 07.08.2004, purportedly executed by Sh. Parmanand, in collusion with the alleged witnesses. On the basis of this fabricated Will, defendant No. 1 succeeded in getting Mutation No. 1403 sanctioned in his name. The plaintiffs contend that this Will is forged, was never executed by Sh. Parmanand during his lifetime, and was in fact created after his death. Therefore, it holds no legal validity. The plaintiffs prayed for decree of declaration affirming their ownership and possession of the suit land, along with a decree of permanent injunction to restrain defendant No. 1 from interfering with their possession, dispossessing them, or alienating any portion of the property.

4.2 Only Defendant No. 1 Ravi Kant, contested the suit by filing a written statement, as the other defendants chose not to contest. In his defence, defendant No. 1 claimed that Sh. Parmanand had executed a subsequent and final Will dated 07.08.2004, through which the property was bequeathed solely in his favour. Based on this Will, the mutation of the disputed land was sanctioned in his name by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Abohar, after recording statements from both parties. He further asserted that the Will dated 07.08.2004 revoked all previous Wills. Denying the other allegations made by the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record.

6.1 Trial Court came to the conclusion that Sh. Parmanand had executed valid Will dated 09.06.2000 (Ex.P4) and had got it registered on 22.06.2000. It was further found that the Will dated 07.08.2004 relied by defendant No.l was not proved. As such, he decreed the suit by way of the judgment dated 11.03.2013.

6.2 However, reversing the aforesaid finding, Id. First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by defendant No.l, held that earlier Will dated 09.06.2000 had been revoked by Sh. Parmanand by virtue of the last Will dated 07.08.2000. The First Appellate Court further found that the said Will was also subject matter of dispute between the Revenue Authorities, who had found the same to be duly proved. Ld. First Appellate Court also held that merely because Sh. Parmanand and defendant No.l-Ravi Kant were under litigat