M.M.PUNCHHI,J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of a woman who claimed herself to be the widow of one Sampuran Singh who had a house in village Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh. That house on the death of Sampuran Singh was claimed by her not only on account of relationship but on the basis of a will. On the other hand, Gian Singh respondent No. 2, claiming himself to be sister's son of Sampuran Singh, claimed it on the basis of another will in which allegedly the will in favour of the petitioner had expressly been cancelled.
(2.) THE disputed arose on account of the proceedings initiated by the police under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to that house. The petitioner claimed that she was in possession of the same after the death of her husband. However, in the course of the mutation proceedings, she claimed that she had been disposed, which dispossession was within two months of the passing of the preliminary order dated 21.1.1980. The matter was put to issue as to who was in possession of the property in dispute within two months of the preliminary order. The petitioner besides filing her written statement, filed documentary evidence in the form of photostat copies of the original will, ration card, voters' list, house tax receipt and bank pass-books. She also filed affidavits of six persons. On the other hand, respondent No. 2, besides giving his written statement came in the witness-box and brought two witnesses to support his claim. The learned Magistrate ignored the affidavits produced by the petitioner. Rather, he drew inference that no witness had come to support her cause and that even she had not stepped into the witness-box. The documentary evidence produced on her behalf was doubted by the learned Magistrate taking the view that it had been prepared near about the death of Sampuran Singh for ulterior purposes. On the other hand, he relied on the evidence of the respondent and his witnesses. He thus came to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the property in dispute and the petitioner had not been dispossessed therefrom within two months of the passing of the preliminary order. That view was affirmed by the Court of Session.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was weighty and it should have been taken into account read with the contents of the affidavits of the persons placed by the petitioner on record. It is claimed by the learned counsel that injustice had been done to the petitioner, for the affidavits were not considered.;