IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

RSA No.123 of 1981 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.9.2008

Lachhman

.....Appellant

Vs.

Suram Singh and others

....Respondents

....

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

****

Present :

Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Desh Pal Singh Rana,

Advocate for the respondents.

...

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

CM No.527-C of 2007

Prayer in this application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read

with Section 151 CPC is for permission to lead additional evidence of a

handwriting expert so as to establish that the thumb impressions appearing

on the disputed will are not of Smt Indro.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The applicant-

appellant cannot be allowed to lead additional evidence at this belated stage.

At no stage of the proceedings, whether before the trial Court or the first

appellate Court or even during the pendency of this appeal, since the year

1981, was any such application filed. To allow such an application at this

belated stage would reopen the entire controversy.

Consequently, the application is dismissed.

CM No.6922-C of 2000

Prayer in this application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with

Section 151 CPC is for impleading Gurcharan Singh, Gurbachan Singh sons

of Som Nath and Sarwan Singh s/o Bhagat Ram as respondents no.9, 10 and

RSA No.123 of 1981

2

11.

Counsel for the applicant submits that during the pendency of

the suit, Varinder Singh and Paramveer sons of Suram Singh, (respondent

no.1) sold a part of the suit property to Gurcharan Singh and Gurbachan

Singh sons of Som Nath by registered sale deed dated 2.8.2000. It is,

therefore, prayed that Gurcharan Singh and Gurbachan Singh and also

Sarwan Singh be impleaded as respondents no.9, 10 and 11.

The respondents, on the other hand submit that relief in the

present suit is with respect to half share of 220 kanals 19 marlas, Varinder

Singh and Paramveer have executed a sale deed with respect to land, which

falls within their half share and even otherwise as the vendees are neither

necessary nor proper parties, the application be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

averments in the application.

In the suit, in hand, the appellant prays that he is owner of

land measuring 220 kanals 19 marlas, alongwith the respondents. It

appears that the respondents have sold land, within their shareholdings.

Gurcharan Singh and Gurbachan Singh and Sarwan Singh being vendees

pendente lite, are neither necessary nor proper parties. The application is

consequently dismissed.

RSA No.123 of 1981

The appellant, challenges the judgement and decree dated

18.9.1980, passed by the Additional District Judge,Hoshiarpur, accepting

the appeal filed by the respondents , reversing the judgement and decree

passed by the learned trial Court and as a result dismissing the suit filed by

the appellant.

RSA No.123 of 1981

3

The appellant filed a suit claiming to be owner of half share of

land measuring 220 kanals 19 marlas owned and possessed by Smt.Indro,

widow of Sibba, who passed away without leaving behind any Class-I heir.

It is averred in the plaint that as the appellant and Suram Singh respondent

no.1, are related in equal degrees to Smt.Indro through her husband, they

are entitled to succeed to her estate, in equal shares. It is further alleged

that Suram Singh, respondent no.1, in collusion with other respondents,

took forcible possession of the suit land claiming to have succeeded to her

estate on the basis of a Will dated 5.2.1964. The Will does not bear the

thumb impression of Smt. Indro and could not have been executed by her as

she became mentally deranged five years before her death. It is alleged that

some other lady was made to impersonate her during the execution and

registration of the Will. The suit was resisted by Suram Singh, defendant

no.1 by denying the facts pleaded in the