Rajasthan High Court
Rameshwar Dayal And Ors vs Jagdish (2023:Rj-Jp:26148) on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:26148]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 151/2018
1. Rameshwar Dayal S/o Late Harchand, aged about 70
years, R/o Badkoda, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh
Haryana
2. Balveer S/o Late Harchand, aged about 66 years, R/o
Badkoda, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana
3. Mst. Bachna D/o Late Harchand, aged about 78 years,
R/o Badkoda, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh
Haryana, At Present W/o Jagdish Prasad Ahir, R/o
Doomroli, Tehsil Behror, Distt. Alwar Raj.
4. Mst. Vidhya D/o Late Harchand, aged about 75 years, R/o
Badkoda, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana,
At Present W/o Hari Singh Ahir, R/o Doomroli, Tehsil
Behror, Distt. Alwar Raj.
----Plaintiffs-Appellants
Versus
Jagdish S/o Hajur Singh, aged about 58 years, R/o Badkoda,
Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana
----Defendant-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manu Bhargava
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
03/10/2023
This civil second appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and decree dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge No.2, Behror, Alwar (for brevity, "the
learned Appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.34/2016 (50/2014)
whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants-
plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs"), the judgment and decree
dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Behror
[2023:RJ-JP:26148] (2 of 4) [CSA-151/2018]
(Alwar) (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil
Suit No.34/06/2003 filed for cancellation of will dated 06.01.1975
registered on 19.03.1975 and permanent injunction, have been
affirmed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit
for cancellation of will and permanent injunction against the
respondent-defendant (for brevity, "the defendant") stating
therein that they are family members and after death of Shri
Harsahai, their ancestor, his entire property was inherited by Shri
Chiranji Lal, who was issueless. It was stated that Shri Chiranji Lal
kept Shri Harchand, son of his sister, to look after him when Shri
Harchand was aged about 10-12 years and treated him like his
son; but, the defendant, son of another nephew of Shri Chiranji
Lal, got a forged will dated 06.01.1975 registered on 19.03.1975
allegedly executed by Shri Chiranji Lal in his favour. It was further
stated that since, Shri Chiranji Lal has expired in the year 1974,
there was no occasion for execution of the will by him in the year
1975. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.
The defendant in his written statement, denying the
averments made in the plaint, submitted that he is grand-son of
the deceased-Chiranji Lal who had executed and registered the
subject will in his favour. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was
prayed for.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed seven issues including relief. After recording
evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court
dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014.
The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiffs has
[2023:RJ-JP:26148] (3 of 4) [CSA-151/2018]
been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and
decree dated 16.02.2018.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the only
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is
that from the evidence on record, it was established that Shri
Chiranji Lal had expired in the year 1974 and there was no
occasion for execution of the subject will by him on 06.01.1975
with its registration on 19.03.1975. He, in this regard, relied upon
a certificate dated 15.09.1999 (Ex-7) issued by the Sarpanch
Hameedpur, Panchayat Samiti, Behror. He, therefore, prays that
the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated
16.02.2018 be quashed and set aside and the suit be decreed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that
there is a concurrent finding of fact that Shri Chiranji Lal has not
expired in the year 1974 and the subject will was executed and
registered by him. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the civil
second appeal.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court
on issue no.1 pertaining to validity of the subject will reveals that
after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on
record, was held that the plaintiffs could not establish that Shri
Chiranji Lal had expired in the year 1974. The learned trial Court
noted that, as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have not come out
with any specific date of death of Late Chiranji Lal except a bald
and unsubstantiated averment that he had expired in the year
1974. While appreciating the certificate dated 15.09.1999 (Ex-7),
it was held that it does not give any date of death of Shri Chiranji
[2023:RJ-JP:26148] (4 of 4) [CSA-151/2018]
Lal except that he expired about 25-26 years ago. After
appreciating and analyzing the defendant's evidence including the
evidence of S/Shri Ghisaram (DW-2) & Daulatram (DW-6), the
attesting witnesses to the subject will and the factum of its
registration of the Sub-Registrar, Behror, it was held that Shri
Chiranji Lal was alive on the day the will was executed and did not
expire in the year 1974 as claimed by the plaintiffs. These findings
have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court reappreciating
the evidence on record.
Since, the concurrent finding of fact with regard to death of
Shri Chiranji Lal has not been demonstrated by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs to be suffering from any perversity or
jurisdictional error, this Court finds no reason to interfere in its
second appellate jurisdiction vide Section 100 CPC.
Resultantly, the civil second appeal is dismissed being devoid
of any substantial question of law.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/90
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
