Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANOJ KUMAR & ANR versus SMT. CHAMELI DEVI

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manoj Kumar & Anr v. Smt. Chameli Devi - RSA-612-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 941 (20 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 612 of 2006

Date of Decision: February 7, 2006

Manoj Kumar and another .....Appellants

Vs.

Smt. Chameli Devi .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. A.K. Gahlawat, Advocate

for the appellants.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The defendants are in appeal. They have lost before the learned First Appellate Court.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff that she along with defendant No.2 are owners in equal share of the property left behind by Sita Ram, their father and that the Will dated April 22, 1999 propounded by defendant No.1, son of defendant No.2 was never executed by Sita Ram.

The defendants contested the suit and set up a Will dated April 22, 1999 claimed to have been executed by Sita Ram.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Will in question was not proved in accordance with law. It was also observed by the learned first Appellate Court that an attesting witness of the Will had not R.S.A. No. 612 of 2006 [2]

supported the Will and one of the attesting witnesses Avinash Kumar Bansal, Advocate had specifically admitted that he did not know the testator Sita Ram personally. It was also not deposed by the said witness that he had ever signed the Will in the presence of the testator. Consequently, the Will set up by the defendants was rejected by the learned first Appellate Court. As a result thereof, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the suit filed by the her was decreed.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the Will in question was duly proved by the attesting witness and the scribe of the will as well as the one attesting witness supported that the Will was executed by Sita Ram while he was in his good senses.

However, from the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, it is clear that the attesting witness of the Will had not supported the Will.

One of the attesting witnesses had even stated that he had not known to Sita Ram personally. Similar statement was made by the scribe also. Consequently, there is no scope to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the learned first Appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 7, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.