High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Surjit Singh v. Ajit Singh & Ors - RSA-663-2006  RD-P&H 943 (20 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 663 of 2006
Date of Decision: February 9, 2006
Ajit Singh and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Defendant No.1 is the appellant before this Court He has lost concurrently before the two Courts below.
The dispute relates to the property belonging to one Chanan Singh.
Plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 8 claimed that they are heirs of the aforesaid Chain Singh and as such entitled to succeed to his estate including certain bank accounts. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that mutation had wrongly been sanctioned in favour of Surjit Singh, defendant No.1 on the basis of a Will which he claimed to be executed in his favour by Chain Singh. Defendant No.1 appeared and contested the suit. He justified the mutation in his favour. He claimed that there was a registered Will executed by Chain Singh in his favour. However, strange enough, no date of the will was mentioned.
R.S.A. No. 663 of 2006 
During the proceedings before the learned trial Court, defendant No.1 withdrew all the money from Punjab National Bank lying in the account of Chain Singh. Consequently, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs qua the property. The unregistered Will dated February 22, 1985 set up by defendant No.1 was rejected.
The matter was taken up in appeal by defendant No.1. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and found that defendant No.1, in fact, has completely changed his stand. In the written statement, he alleged a registered Will executed by Chain Singh in his favour. No date of the will was given in the written statement. However, during the course of evidence, defendant No.1 produced an unregistered Will claimed to have been executed by Chain Singh on February 22, 1985. The learned first Appellate Court also rejected the aforesaid Will as not proved and also beyond the pleadings, and appeal of defendant No.1 was dismissed.
From the perusal of the findings recorded by the two Courts below it is apparent that defendant- appellant Surjit Singh has taken a dishonest and false plea to claim the property of Chain Singh. In the written statement it was claimed by him that Chain Singh had executed a registered Will in his favour. No date of the aforesaid Will was ever mentioned. However, while leading evidence, he chose to produce some unregistered Will dated February 22, 1985. Neither the said Will was proved nor it was shown to be executed by Chain Singh. The said Will was not even mentioned in the written statement. It is thus apparent that R.S.A. No. 663 of 2006 
defendant No.1 is trying to perpetuate the dishonest plea raised by him, by filing the present appeal.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below 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.
The present appeal is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The costs shall be paid by defendant No.1 to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a period of three months, failing which the same shall be recovered from him by the aforesaid authority, in accordance with law.
February 9, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.