IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 23.09.2025 RSA-5268-2018 (O&M)

1 Vineet Kumar Sharma & ors. ...... Appellants Versus Pardeep Kumar Sharma & ors. ..... Respondents

2 RSA-5269-2018 (O&M)

Vineet Kumar Sharma & ors. ...... Appellants Versus Smt. Anju Sharma @ Seema & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***

Present :- Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Akshat Mittal, Advocate for the appellants (both cases).

Ms. Riya Thomas, Advocate and Mr. Abhimanyu, Advocate for respondent No.1- RSA-5268-2018 Mr. Rajesh Jangra, Advocate for respondent No.2- RSA-5268-2018 for respondent No.1- RSA-5269-2018 None for respondent No.2- RSA-5269-2018 POOJA SHARMA Page 1 of 28 Service upon respondent No.3-dispensed with vide order dated 21.05.2019 in RSA-5268-2018 and RSA-5269-2018 ***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 By way of this common judgment, I intend to dispose off the afore-captioned two regular second appeals. Defendants No.1, 8, 2, 3, 4 & 6 are in second appeal.

2 Civil Suit No.16558 of 2013 titled as Pardeep Kumar Sharma Vs. Shri Vineet Sharma & ors. was filed by respondent No.1-Pardeep Kumar Sharma seeking decree of possession by way of partition. Civil Suit No.21619 of 2014 titled as Smt. Anju Sharma @ Seema Vs. Pardeep Kumar Sharma & ors. was filed by daughter of late Ram Parkash Sharma seeking decree of declaration to the effect that the WILL propounded by the present appellants claiming to be the WILL executed by late Ram Parkash Sharma is illegal, null and void and that the plaintiffs are co-owner and co-sharer in joint possession to the extent of 1/5^th share in the suit property. The said two suits were ordered to be consolidated vide order dated 18.10.2016.

3 Parties to the lis are sons, daughters, and daughters-in-law of late Ram Parkash Sharma, who died on 17.02.2011. Late Ram Parkash Sharma had five children, i.e, three sons and two daughters. One of his sons, namely Suneet Kumar Sharma and one of the daughters, namely Pratibha Rishi, predeceased him. Accordingly, he left behind Vineet Kumar Sharma, POOJA SHARMA Page 2 of 28 appellant No.1, Pardeep Kumar Sharma-respondent No.1 in RSA-5268-2018 and Anju Sharma @ Seema-respondent No.2 in RSA-5268-2018. Appellants claimed that Ram Parkash Sharma executed WILL dated 20.05.2008, whereby he bequeathed ground floor of the suit property in favor of his daughter-in-law, namely Purnima Sharma, wife of Vineet Sharma, and First floor of the suit property in favor of the other daughter-in-law, namely Sushma Sharma, widow of late Suneet Kumar Sharma, the predeceased son. The daughters, namely Anju Sharma @ Seema and late Pratibha Rishi, and the third son, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, were excluded.

4 The issue in the lis relates to legality and validity of unregistered WILL propounded by the present appellants. The excluded son and daughter are disputing the WILL, claiming that the same is result of fraud played by the daughters-in-law upon deceased Ram Parkash Sharma. It is being claimed that the deceased was in old age and was suffering from diseases. He was hard of hearing and was unable to see properly. The WILL in question has been obtained exercising coercion, and the same is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

5 Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs disbelieving the WILL. Trial Court held that the appellants have failed to prove due execution of WILL dated 20.05.2008 and the same cannot be believed. Trial Court enlisted the following reasons for disbelieving the WILL :-

“24- In the present case, after considering the evidences available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the defendants POOJA SHARMA Page 3 of 28 no. 2 and 8 in the main suit have failed to prove the due execution of will dated 20-05-2008 allegedly executed by late Ram Parkash Sharma. Following are the reasons behind my conclusions:-

24.1- Original will has been presented as Ex-DW3/1. Perusal of this will reveals that