IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3773 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.12.2025 Bhateri and another ....Appellants Versus Bhagat Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

Plaintiffs are in second appeal.

2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of First Instance, i.e., the appellants as plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of the suit land as described in the headnote of the plaint to the extent of their share being legal heirs of Risal Singh son of Makhan Lal and that the WILL bearing Document No.203, dated 27.09.2006 executed by Makhan Lal, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon their rights and interest. Further relief prayed was decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating, creating any kind of encumbrances over the suit land.

4. As per the plaint, Makhan Lal was owner in possession of the suit land. It was ancestral property in his hands. He left behind three sons namely Risal Singh, Bhagat Ram, Nihal Singh and two daughters namely Smt. Kamla and Smt. Bimla and widow namely Sona Devi. Risal Singh died on 30.04.2000. Risal Singh married Ram Murti and had a son Varun, defendant No.6, from his first marriage. Risal Singh, thereafter, performed second marriage with Bhateri plaintiff No.1. From the second marriage, plaintiff No.2 Renuka was born. Plaintiffs thus claimed to be legal heirs of Risal Singh and claimed their right to inherit share from the ancestral property of Makhan Lal.

5. As per the plaint, Makhan Lal died on 02.03.2000 intestate. As per plaintiffs, defendants illegally propounded WILL bearing document No.203, dated 27.09.2006 claimed to have been executed by Makhan Lal. The WILL is a result of fraud and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs.

6. Suit was contested by defendants No.1, 2 and 6 by filing joint written statement. As per defendants, plaintiffs have no concern with the family of Makhan Lal. In the year 1994, Risal Singh lost his wife. He deserted his family and son Varun. He was involved in a murder case of Narsi son of Ram Narain. He was sentenced. He died in jail. There was no matrimonial relationship between Risal Singh and plaintiff No.1. She is rather wife of one Gopi Ram, who has no concern with the property in question. It was further claimed that the plaintiffs not being in possession of even an inch of the land, the present suit without seeking possession, is not maintainable.

6.1. In the written statement, it has been claimed that Makhan Lal executed valid WILL which was duly registered at Sr. No.696, dated 27.09.2006. Mutation was sanctioned qua estate left by Makhan Lal on the basis of WILL. The property in dispute being self-acquired property of Makhan Lal, he was fully competent to bequeath the same in favour of his legal heirs.

7. Defendants filed counter claim seeking decree of permanent injunction against plaintiffs from interfering in the peaceful possession of the defendants.

8. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of First Instance, framing following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff No.1 being widow and plaintiff No.2 being daughter of Risal Singh predeceased son of Makhan Lal son of Nandu Ram are owner in possession to the extent of their share in the suit land on the basis of inheritance?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.

3. Whether the Will bearing No.203 dated 27.09.2006 was validly executed by Makhan Lal? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause o