Gurmeet Kaur And Another vs Jasbir Singh And Others on 20 August, 2009

C.R.No.4695 of 2009


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                                  C.R.No.4695 of 2009.
                                  Decided on August 20, 2009.


Gurmeet Kaur and another.

                                                          .. Petitioners

                 VERSUS


Jasbir Singh and others.

                                                     .. Respondents

                        ***

CORAM:           HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI


PRESENT          Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate,
                 for the petitioners.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Vide the impugned order, the defendants-

respondents, have been permitted to lead secondary evidence,

pertaining to a Will claimed by him to have been executed on

13.12.1973.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the

deceased had died in the year 1972, prior to the said alleged will. It

has been argued that unless and until the existence and loss is

proved, permission to lead secondary evidence cannot be granted.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners. The

respondents-defendants have taken up a plea that the Will alleged to

… 1
C.R.No.4695 of 2009

have been executed by Shingara Singh had been registered and that

the original Will had been produced before the Revenue Authorities.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners. It appears that this revision petition has

been filed on the basis of mis-conception that the existence, loss,

admissibility, relevancy, attestation and registration has been

admitted by permitting the production of secondary evidence. It is

made clear that the impugned order dated 20.07.2009, will not be

deemed to prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs-petitioners, in any

manner, and the order will not, at any stage, be presumed to have

established the existence and loss of the document. The impugned

order will not, in any manner, be taken to have impliedly permitted

the presumption of existence, execution, loss of the alleged

document. The defendants will have to prove that the Will actually

was executed or existed. He will have to prove its loss and due

attestation in accordance with law.

With the above observations, this petition is

disposed of.

It will be open to the petitioners-plaintiffs to

establish that the case of the respondents does not fall under

Section 65 (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, and that even the certified

copy sought to be produced is a forged document.

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
August 20, 2009.

rka

… 2
C.R.No.4695 of 2009

… 3