IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 18.12.2024 Date of decision: 14.01.2025 VASAKHA SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

..Appellants Versus JIT SINGH AND ANOTHER ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikrant Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

CM-11901-C-2024

1. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased late Sh. Vasakha Singh [appellant], is allowed, subject to all the just exceptions.

2. CM stands disposed of.

RSA-2509-1991

3. In this regular second appeal, the defendant assails the correctness of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing plaintiff’s suit for grant of decree of declaration of the fact that the plaintiff is owner in possession of share of Sh. Daman Singh in the land measuring 91 kanal and 13 marlas situated in village Sehna, Tehsil Barnala on the basis of Will dated 13.03.1984 and the sale deed dated 29.11.1984 is not binding on plaintiff’s right with a consequential relief of permanent and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff with respect to land measuring

18 kanal and 12 marlas.

4. In this case, the dispute is with regard to inheritance of the property left behind by Sh. Daman Singh, who died on 27.09.1984. On the one hand, Smt. Jangir Kaur claims to be widow who has executed a sale deed in favour of Sh. Vasakha Singh on 29.11.1984, whereas, on the other hand Sh. Jit Singh claims the property on the basis of Will dated 13.03.1984. Sh. Jit Singh is grandson of Sh. Daman Singh’s sister. Sh. Jit Singh claimed that Sh. Daman Singh was not married.

5. The execution of the Will has been proved by examining PW-2 Sh. Hari Ram scribe, attesting witnesses, PW-3 Gurnam Singh, Nambardar of the village Sehna and PW-4 Sh. Gurdev Singh member of the Panchayat. Thumb impression of Sh. Daman Singh appended on the Will has been proved by examining Sh. Tiwan K.S. Puri, hand writing and fingerprint expert, who compared the thumb impression of Sh. Daman Singh on the Will and mortgage deed. Both the Courts have held that Sh. Daman Singh was unmarried and Smt. Jangir Kaur is not proved to be the widow. The testamentary disposition of the property by Sh. Daman Singh has been proved.

6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

7. It may be noted here that in the first round, this appeal was allowed on 10.05.1996, however, it was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.07.2003, hence, the appeal has come up for re-hearing. This Court has also studied the judgment passed on 10.05.1996. The learned counsel representing the appellant has contended that the judgment dated 10.05.1996, is required to be reiterated as it has been set aside only on the ground that the substantial question of law was not culled out. He submitted that cogent reasons have been given in the judgment dated

10.05.1996, which has been set aside only on technical ground.

8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent has contented that there is no scope for interference in the second appeal and the judgment which has already been set aside cannot be relied upon.

9. This Court has considered the submission put forth by learned counsel representing the parties.

10. As far as execution of the Will dated 13.03.1984, is concerned, two attesting witnesses namely Sh. Gurnam Singh and Sh. Gurdev Singh have supported the Will. There were as many as four attesting witnesses of the Will including Sh. Mukthiar Singh, who appeared as DW-4 and supported defendant’s case, however, in cross-examination, he admitted that the Will was scribed by Sh. Hari Ram. Thus, it is proved that Sh. Hari Ram scribed t