Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) Plaintiffs had sought a decree for possession on basis of will dated 24.7.1992. To prove the will executed by Siri Chand, three witnesses were examined, namely Chajju Ram as PW.1, Lal Chand as PW.3 and Shyam Lal as PW.4. Both the Courts below held the witnesses to be unreliable, discrepant and full of contradictions. The deceased was 90 years old. Two days before his death, he is said to have made a will, whereas the witnesses have stated that after the will made, the deceased was seen by them moving in the street. Two Courts below have adversely commented upon the evidence led by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was held that will is accompanied by many suspicious circumstances.
(2.) In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below, suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs has been Regular Second dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellants has stated that he had made an averment that Rulda Ram son of Siri Chand was not entitled to succeed to the estate of Siri Chand as he has been adopted by Naurata Ram. To fortify this, it has been submitted that will of Naurata Ram was produced on record as PW.6/A. Whether Rulda Ram was adopted or not was not a fact in issue before the Courts below. Neither any evidence was led. A passing averments made and reply in the written statement cannot oust the rights of Rulda Ram.;