JUDGMENT
A.K. Goel, J.
1. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that decree dated 26.10. 1974, in suit No.154 of 1974, titled Surjit Singh v. Teja Singh passed by Sub Judge, Ajnala, was void and she was in joint possession of the, suit land being the daughter of Teja Singh, deceased. It was stated that deceased Teja Singh bad also executed a valid will dated 9.8.1974 in her favour; defendant No.2 to 5, sons of the brother of Teja Singh deceased, filed suit for declaration that they were owners of the land of Teja Singh deceased since 1962 by way of family arrangement and on account of threats etc, Teja Singh deceased admitted that claim on the basis of which the decree was passed; the plaintiff filed a suit challenging the decree during the life time of Teja Singh, but the said suit was withdrawn with permission to file another suit (on account of technical defect in the earlier suit).
2. The defendants contested the suit and denied will in favour of the plaintiff; defendants relied on a will dated 27.11.196S and another will dated 11.6.1975; decree dated 26.10.1974 was also defendant.
3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. It was held that will dated 9.8.1974, Ex.P-1 was not a valid wilt (issue No.1); Teja Singh executed another will dated 11.6.1975, Ex.D-1 (issue No.2); decree dated 26.10.1974 Ex.P-7 suffered by Teja Singh by consent was valid (issue No. 3). The appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on all the issues and held that will dated 9.8.1974 in favour of the plaintiff was valid; will dated 11.6.1975 in favour of the defendants No.2 to 5 was not valid; decree dated 26.10.1974 was sham and bogus, and was obtained by undue influence and concealment of facts by the defendants and decreed the suit. The appellate Court observed that the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the trial Court regarding will Ex. P-l did not exist; the documents r.;lied on by the defendants were not genuine; will Ex.D-2 dated 27.11.1968 was not discussed since subsequent will Ex.P-1 was up-held; recitals in the order Ex.P-7 based on plaint filed by the defendants were clearly false being contrary to the documents on record like Ex.P-8 jamabandi for the year 1971-72; the parties treated decree Ex.P-7 as a sham transaction, as the defendants relied on will Ex. D-1 dated 11.6.1975, which was subsequent to the decree and if a valid decree was there, there was no occasion for execution of will dated 11.6.1975; will Ex.D-1 dated 11.6.1975 was surrounded by suspicicus circumstances; relationship between father and his only child i.e. the plaintiff being cordial, there was no reason to exclude her from inheritance, Evidence of the witnesses, who attested the wilt did not inspire confidence and evidence of Dr. Rattan Singh, PW-5 was to the effect that the deceased was not in a fit mental condition to make the will
4. Learned counse, for the appellant sought to reframe the following substantial questions of law;-
“(i) Whether the Ld. Lower Appellate Court committed grave error of law by relying on will dated 9.8.1974 (Ex.P1) which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances?
(ii) Whether the teamed Appellant Court erred in law by rejecting the registered will dated 11.6.1974 (Ex.D1)?
(iii) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in law by setting aside the decree dt. 26.10.1974 on the ground of undue influence and concealment of facts?
(iv) Whether the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court is perverse based on misreading of evidence on the record and is contrary to well settled position of law?”
5. Counsel for the appellant argued that particulars of fraud etc, are required to be specifically pleaded as per provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC and without pleadings, decree dated 26.10.1974 could not be held to be vitiated on account of undue influence and concealment. Reliance was placed on Subhash Chander v. Ranga Parshad, A.I.R, 1967 S.C. 878. It was also submitted that will dated 11.6.1975, should have been unheld and will dated 9.8.1974 should have been rejected and decree dated 26.10.1974 was also
a valid decree. It was also submitted that the findings of the appellate Court were perverse and based on misreading of evidence.
6. After considering the submissions of counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, I find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. It has been held in Bhoop Singh v. Rom Singh, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 559 (SC) that the consent decree not based on pre-existing title of the plaintiff was not admissible in evidence and could not affect the title to an immovable property in absence of registration. Moreover, it has been rightly held that inspite of the said decree, will dated 11.6.1975 was alleged to have been executed by the deceased, which showed that the decree was a sham transaction. From the circumstances of the case and evidence on record, findings has already and rightly been given that the decree was obtained by exercise of undue influence are duly pleaded and recruitment of Order 6, Rule 4 CPC are fully satisfied. The judgments relied on by the counsel for the appellant has no application. The will dated 9.8.1974 in favour of the plaintiff was perfectly valid and there was no suspicious circumstances regarding the same. Will dated 11.6.1975 has been rightly rejected having regard to the suspicious circumstances including the evidence of the doctor attending on the deceased.
For the above reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, questions sought to be raised by the appellant are decided against the appellant and the appeal is dismissed.