- (1.) As ill-logical as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the complainants, to settle their score (civil dispute), by filing the false criminal complaint against the accused is increasing day by day in our society mounting number of pending cases in the Courts. The instant case is a burning example of such like cases.
(2.) The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that Brij Lal Ahluwalia was the owner of house, bearing No.15-B, situated at Model Town, Patiala. He had no son. He expired on 30.1.1984, leaving behind his widow Kaushalya Ahluwalia and three daughters, namely, Kanta Ahluwalia (petitioner No.4), Chandlesh Ahluwalia (petitioner No.5) and Amita Ahluwalia (petitioner No.6). In this manner, the natural heirs/LRs of Brij Lal Ahluwalia were stated to have inherited his property, including the house in dispute. In the wake of some dispute between his LRs, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 filed a civil suit for declaration against their mother Kaushalya Ahluwalia and sister Amita Ahluwalia (petitioner No.6). Later on, they have amicably settled their dispute, by means of compromise deed dated 7.7.1998 (Annexure P1).
(3.) The Punjab Consumer Welfare Society (for brevity "the Society"), claiming itself to be successor of late Kaushalya Ahluwalia widow of Brij Lal Ahluwalia, filed another civil suit (Annexure P2) for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against petitioner Nos.4 to 6. The stay application filed by it was dismissed by the trial Court, by way of order dated 5.2.2005 (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is (para 17) as under:- "17. Admittedly, Brij Lal was the owner of the house in dispute. He has already expired. Respondents are daughters of Brij Lal. The applicant has claimed that Kaushalya Devi widow of Brij Lal was the sole owner of the house in dispute on account of Will executed by Brij Lal. But copy of the Will is not produced on record. There is no such evidence regarding Will on the file. Moreover, copy of compromise dated 7.7.98 entered into between the L.Rs. of Brij Lal reveals that Kaushalya Devi has not claimed any Will executed by Brij Lal. Admittedly Kaushalya Devi has challenged the alleged compromise dated 7.7.98 by filing suit. Copy of order dated 17.5.2001 is also on the file. In this suit also, Kaushalya Devi has claimed herself cosharer to the extent of 1/4 th share. This fact also proves that Kaushalya Devi was not the sole owner of the entire house. As such, she was not competent to execute Will regarding the entire house. The applicant has produced on record copy of Will dated 13.10.2004 allegedly executed by Kaushalya Devi. Kaushalya Devi or her husband Brij Lal were having no concern with the plaintiff society. In Will, it is mentioned that Brij Lal has executed Will in her favour on 31.1.84, but admittedly, Brij Lal has executed Will in her favour on 31.1.84, but admittedly, Brij Lal has already expired on 30.1.84. In such circumstances, the genuineness of the Will allegedly executed by Kaushalya Devi is yet to be ascertained. The applicant has also claimed possession of part of the house on the basis of Will. But date of taking possession is not mentioned. This fact also shows that applicant has not in possession of any part of the house in dispute. The respondents are legal heirs of Kaushalya Devi and they are the owners of the house in dispute. The applicant has failed to prima facie case in his favour. Therefore, the application of the applicant is without merit and the same stands dismissed. However, any observation made by me in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.";