R.S.A.No.385 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 04.09.2009
R.S.A.No.385 of 2008
Darshan Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
Ruldu Singh and others ...Respondents
R.S.A.No.386 of 2008
Darshan Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
Ruldu Singh and others ...Respondents
R.S.A.No.387 of 2008
Darshan Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
Ruldu Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.385 of 2008, 386 of 2008
and 387 of 2008 arising out of suits for declaration that the plaintiffs-
appellants are owner of the suit land by virtue of Will dated 21.4.1974
R.S.A.No.385 of 2008 2
executed by Dalip Singh. The plaintiffs have filed three separate suits by
impleading different parties, but claiming the estate of Dalip Singh on the
basis of Will dated 21.4.1974.
The plaintiffs are the sons of Nachhattar Singh. The defendants
are the legal heirs of the Dalip Singh i.e. brother of Nachhattar Singh or
the vendees from said Dalip Singh. In other words, the plaintiffs are
claiming estate of Dalip Singh, their uncle, on the basis of Will, when
Dalip Singh had his own sons and daughters and also left a wife.
The evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by an order dated
26.7.1995. The case was firstly fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs on
7.2.1995, when it was adjourned to 21.3.1995 and then to 10.4.1995.
There was a change of counsel by the plaintiffs and at his request, the
case was adjourned to 25.4.1995, subject to payment of cost of Rs.100/-.
On 25.4.1995, the plaintiffs produced three witnesses, but all of them
were given up. The statement was made that the other witnesses will be
produced on the next date. The case was adjourned to 16.5.1995 and
subsequently on 26.7.1995, after two witnesses were examined, the
evidence of the plaintiff was closed. None of the two witnesses examined
are the attesting witnesses of the Will propounded by the plaintiffs dated
21.4.1974.
In view of the fact that the plaintiffs are claiming estate on the
basis of Will dated 21.4.1974, but the said Will has not been proved in
evidence, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be
suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. Though the learned
counsel for the appellants has sought to urge that the order of close of
evidence is unjustified, but keeping in view the number of opportunities
R.S.A.No.385 of 2008 3
given to the appellants and the fact that the plaintiffs have propounded a
Will in their favour executed by their uncle in the presence of natural
heirs, is itself a suspicious circumstance.
In view of the said fact, I do not find that the findings recorded
suffer from any patent illegality or irregularity and that any substantial
question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal.
Dismissed.
04.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE