JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. The defendant is the appellant.
The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for joint possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff-respondent, she is the daughter of Mohan Singh who was owner and in possession of 1/5th share in the suit land and the said Mohan Singh expired on 14.3.1988 leaving behind his widow Mohinder Kaur and daughter Ranjit Kaur as his legal heirs and the defendant is the real brother of Mohan Singh. In order to deprive the widow and daughter of Mohan Singh, the defendant set up a Will said to have been executed by Mohan Singh in his favour. The said Will is false and fabricated one and Mohan Singh never executed any Will in his life time. Therefore, his widow Mohinder Kaur and Ranjit Kaur filed the suit. After filing of the suit, Mohinder Kaur died and the suit was continued by the 2nd Plaintiff Ranjit Kaur, who is the respondent herein.
2. In the written statement, defendant-appellant admitted that Mohan Singh was his real brother and co-sharer of the suit land, but he denied that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Mohan Singh. According to him, Mohan Singh was unmarried and died issueless and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. He further alleged that Mohan Singh executed a Will on 7.1.1988 during his life time and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief prayed for.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues and on a consideration of the evidence on record decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendant was unsuccessful. Therefore, the defendant filed this second appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Mohinder Kaur and Ranjit Kaur are not legal heirs of Mohan Singh. In order to prove that Mohinder Kaur is the legally wedded wife of Mohan Singh, the plaintiff examined seven witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. PW-1 who is a Clerk in the State Bank of India, deposed that Mohan Singh and Mohinder Kaur opened a joint account in the Bank and their photographs were also pasted on the account opening form which is marked as Exhibit P-1. Therein it is clearly mentioned that Mohinder Kaur is the wife of Mohan Singh. PW-2 is a Teacher in the Government Primary School, Kaler Kalan, who on the basis of the school record, proved that Ranjit Kaur was admitted in the School on 10.4.1967 and in the admission record she was described as the daughter of Mohan Singh. Exhibit P-3 is a certificate issued by the School authorities showing that Ranjit Kaur is the daughter of Mohan Singh. PW-3 deposed that Mohan Singh married Mohinder Kaur in the year 1958-59 and the marriage was solemnised in the presence of the villagers and he also attended the marriage. He further deposed that Ranjit Kaur was born to Mohan Singh and his wife Mohinder Kaur. PW-4 who is a master in the Govt. High School, Kaler Kalan, produced the school record showing that Ranjit Kaur was admitted in the School on 11.5.1974 in 6th Class and she was described as a daughter of Mohan Singh in the admission register. He deposed that according to school record, Ranjit Kaur was born on 6.3.1961. The plaintiff also examined the Sub Inspector of Food and Supply Department as PW-5 who produced the ration cards which has been marked as Exhibit PW-5/8. It shows that Mohan Singh was son of Buta Singh and Mohinder Kaur has been shown as the wife of Mohan Singh. Thus from the evidence on record, it is clear that Mohinder Kaur was the wife of Mohan Singh and Ranjit Kaur respondent in this appeal was born in 1961.
5. Both the Courts on the appreciation of the evidence on record concurrently found that Mohinder Kaur was the wife of Mohan Singh and Ranjit Kaur is their daughter. I do not find any ground to disturb this finding which is based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record.
6. The defendant set up a Will said to have been executed by Mohan Singh during his life time in his favour. DW-2 is an attestor of the Will, which is marked as Exhibit D-2. He deposed that Mohan Singh did not marry Mohinder Kaur. He also refused to identify the photograph of Mohan Singh and Mohinder Kaur which has been pasted on the account opening form with the State Bank of India. It is clear from his evidence that he is not in a position to recognise the photograph of Mohan Singh. Thus it is clear that he is not acquainted with Mohan Singh and is a complete stranger to the family. His evidence also shows that he had never seen Mohinder Kaur and Ranjit Kaur. On going through his evidence it is quite clear that he is most unreliable witness and since he has not seen Mohan Singh, he cannot say whether the Will was executed by Mohan Singh. Another attesting witness examined by the defendant deposed that he was not on visiting terms with Mohan Singh. Though he recognised Mohan Singh in the photograph Exhibit P-1, he refused to recognise Mohinder Kaur, but at the same time, he admitted in his evidence that Mohinder Kaur and Ranjit Kaur were living in the house of Mohan Singh. When he was not on visiting terms with Mohan Singh, there was no reason for Mohan Singh asking him to attest the Will. This Will is not registered one. The Will is said to have been executed on 7.1.1988 whereas Mohan Singh died on 14.3.1988. If really the Will was executed during the life time of Mohan Singh nothing prevented him from getting it registered. Apart from that, the evidence on record clearly shows that Mohan Singh married Mohinder Kaur and from the loins of Mohan Singh, a daughter namely Ranjit Kaur was born. There is no reason for his to exclude is wife and daughter from succeeding his property.
7. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below rightly held that Mohinder Kaur was wife of Mohan Singh and Ranjit Kaur was his daughter and the Will set up by the defendant was not executed by Mohan Singh. I do not find any error of law in the decrees and judgments of the Courts below.
8. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.