The registered Will prevails over any unregistered will; courts evaluate the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in injunction applications.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda in Civil Suit bearing No.CS-1550-2021 titled as “Gurshaminder Singh and another Vs. Jagtar Singh and others”, whereby an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC had been dismissed. Challenge is also to the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the First Appellate Court, Bathinda whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 08.09.2022 had also been dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Will No.548 dated 07.11.2014 allegedly executed by Kartar Kaur widow of Jagroop Singh in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.1 and 2 is a false, fake and fabricated document and the plaintiffs are not bound by the same. It is submitted that challenge in the said suit is also made to mutation No.77811 vide which mutation was sanctioned on 23.06.2021 on the basis of the said Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that Kartar Kaur widow of Jagroop Singh was owner of the land in question and she was the mother-in-law of plaintiff No.2/petitioner No.2 and grandmother of plaintiff No.1/petitioner No.1.

3. It is submitted that she had executed an unregistered Will dated 19.10.2014 in favour of plaintiff No.1/petitioner No.1 and the subsequent alleged registered Will dated 07.11.2014 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, inasmuch as, the said Will dated 07.11.2014 was said to have been registered at 04:17:47 PM on 07.11.2014 and that it has come on record by virtue of statement of PW1-Dr. Bharat Bhushan Jindal that the said Kartar Kaur was admitted at the hospital at 05:00 pm on 07.11.2014. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement of the said Doctor who had been produced as PW1 and has highlighted his evidence in chief to show that Kartar Kaur was suffering from several issues including a fractured hip, with an acute kidney disease and hypertension and that she was admitted at the hospital and was thereafter discharged on 10.11.2014. It is further submitted that the said Kartar Kaur had died on 12.11.2014 i.e., within five days from the execution of the registered Will dated 07.11.2014 and the said circumstances clearly show that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the said Will. It is submitted that once the said suspicious circumstances were there with respect to the Will propounded by the respondents No.1 & 2, then, prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs was established. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the respondents/defendants should have been restrained from alienating the suit property as the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and they would suffer irreparable loss in case the respondents are able to sell the suit property. It is submitted that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are illegal and deserve to be set aside and the reliance sought to be placed upon the mutation proceedings is also against law, as it is a matter of settled law that the civil suit is to be decided independently de hors of the decision in the mutati