R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2001 pased by Addl. District Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the appeal of the appellants by affirming the findings of the trial Court which held that though the plaintiffs are in possession of the property but the Will propounded by them allegedly executed by Chhota Singh is not a genuine document for the following reasons as given in paras No. 12 to 15 of the judgment of the trial Court :- "12. A perusal of the order dated 21.10.88 passed by the Collector, Patiala, which is proved on record as Ex. D-3 clearly shows that the Collector has held that appellants have failed to prove the Will. Attesting witness Sant Ram, who is a Sarpanch and resides in village Narwana, is an attesting witness to the Will, but he has not been examined by the appellants and appellants have also failed to specify any reason for non-examination of this witness, who is alive. 13. The above discussion clearly shows that appellants have failed to prove the execution of Will in their favour by deceased Chhota Singh. As such, Will Ex.P1 is nothing but a forged document and it has rightly been so held by the trial Court. The appellants as such can not be held entitled to the declaration. 14. Appellants in this case have also sought a relief of permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 19 bighas 14 biswas. A persual of the revenue record placed on record indicates that the appellants have been reflected to be in possession of 19 bighas 14 biswas of land comprised in Khewat No. 47, Khatauni No. 76, Khasra Nos. 58//10/2(4-2), 11(7-12), 12/1(4- 0), 12/2(4-0). Once the appellants have been reflected to be in possession of land measuring 19 bighas 14 biswas, naturally their possession can not be allowed to be disturbed by any one except in due course of law. The trial Court, therefore, rightly granted the relief of injunction to the appellants, while decreeing the suit of the appellants partly. 15. I have gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court on the remaining issues and have found that there is no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by the trial Court. I deem it pertinent to record that most of the allegations contained in the grounds of appeal are unfounded and could not be substantiated by the counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments."
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the revenue Court is not binding upon the civil Court and even if it is held in the order 11.10.1988 that the Will of Chhota Singh has not been proved or that it is a bogus document, yet the civil court has to formulate an independent finding. I do not dispute with the proposition of law as laid down by the learned counsel for the appellants. Firstly, I may mention that the order dated 11.10.1988 has not been challenged by the plaintiffs at any stage. Though the finding of the revenue court is not binding upon the civil court but the procedure of proving the Will will remain the same whether in the revenue Court or in the civil Court. Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiffs have led any cogent evidence with regard to the due execution of the Will. Sant Ram, one of the attesting witnesses of the Will is alive but he has not been examined by the plaintiffs in the civil Court for the reasons best known to them. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that Sant Ram was the hostile witness, who did not support the plaintiffs in the revenue proceedings, therefore, there was no occasion on behalf of the plaintiffs to examine him in the civil Court. I do not subscribe to this submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Sant Ram should have been brought in the witness-box though he was hostile to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs could have taken the opportunity in the civil Court to cross-examine the witness with regard to the execution of the Will. The document is unregistered and the duty was upon the propounder of the Will to prove the due execution of the Will and to remove all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. This onus has not been discharged. Therefore, finding could not be granted in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the due execution of the Will.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that after the death of Chhota Singh the plaintiffs have been discharging his responsibilities and dues and, therefore, it should be held that Chhota Singh executed the Will in their favour and bequeathed his property in their favour. Again the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable to this Court. By mere discharging all the dues of Chhota Singh does not mean that the execution of the Will has been proved which is an independent act and has to be proved according to law. Resultantly, I am not in a position to agree with any of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and thus the findings of the first Appellate Court are affirmed. No merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;