MEHNGA RAM Vs. SURJIT KAUR AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-706
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 11,2014

MEHNGA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
Surjit Kaur And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SABINA,J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 04.05.2011, whereby application moved by respondent No.1 to prove the Will dated 27.04.1994 by way of secondary evidence, was allowed.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
(3.) The Trial Judge, while allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 for permission to prove the Will in question by leading secondary evidence has held as under:- "After giving thoughtful consideration to the averments and the respective contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, firstly it is observed that the plaintiff Surjit Kaur has filed the suit for declaration of ownership in possession over the property left by deceased Pritam Dass son of Baj Ram, on the basis of Will dated 27.04.1994 in her favour. The original will stated to have been produced by the plaintiff in mutation no.3304 of village Singriwala before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur, on the basis of which the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned. The Sadar Kanungo summoned with the record of Will stated that the will is not in office of Sadar Kanungo and thereafter the office Kanungo Tehsil was summoned to prove the mutation no.3304 decided by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur on 21.02.1995. Even Shri Ram Parkash Clerk of the office of Office Kanungo stated that the original will is not in the office of Kanungo. Though the execution of the will dated 27.04.1994 by Pritam Dass in favour of the plaintiff was denied by the plaintiff. However, in the given set of the facts and circumstances above discussed it is observed that since the original will stated to had been produced by the plaintiff in mutation no.3304 of village Singriwala before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur and the same is not being produced by the concerned Sadar Kanungo, office Kanungo, therefore, in that event there is no other alternative remedy available to the plaintiff to prove the will dated 27.4.1994 except by way of leading the secondary evidence. As such, the application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Now to come up on 12.5.2011 for secondary evidence at own responsibility." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.