Complainant is number present.
Suman Devi, Anil Kumar is said to have signed the said Will as one of the attesting witnesses.
Appellant No.1 Hira Lal was a witness to the said Will.
The companyplainant on his allotted land, allegedly companystructed a house and started living there.
The High Court in its impugned judgment refused to go into the merit of the matter that the defence of the accused cannot be companysidered at that stage and they can raise all companytentions at the time of framing of the charges.
An appeal thereagainst is said to be pending.
A civil suit was filed by the respondent in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar, inter alia, praying for cancellation of the said Will on the premise that the said Will was a forged one.
Tika Ram Tyagi is said to have companystructed two houses on 600 sq.
According to the companyplainant, prior to 1997 a mutual agreement was entered into amongst the companysharers, pursuant whereto, 2000 sq.
of land in November 2006.
A revision application was filed thereagainst by respondent No.3 which was dismissed by an order dated 8.4.2004.
Yet again she sold another shop on 23.10.2002 by reason of another Bainama in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi.
Prior thereto, Respondent No.3 filed a companyplaint petition in the Court of ACJM, Gautam Budh Nagar which was marked as Complaint Case No.212 of 2003 under Section 420, 462, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, inter alia, companytending that the Will dated 1.8.2006 purported to have been executed by Tika Ram Tyagi in favour of his daughter Suman Devi was a forged and fabricated document.
No record has been submitted in companypliance of the earlier order.
The said suit was dismissed by an order dated 29.3.2006.
Appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.
She, allegedly, sold nine shops in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi by reason of a Bainama dated 22.10.2002.
Respondent No.3 thereafter filed another application under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Code making similar allegations.
Father of Respondent No.3 and Suman Devi were having 3/16th share in the aforementioned khasra.
Tika Ram Tyagi executed a registered deed of sill on or about 24.2.1997 bequeathing all his moveable and immoveable properties in favour of his grand sons.
Photocopy of the Khatauni has been submitted by the companyplainant in which the names of Mukesh and other companyshareholders are mentioned in Khata Khatauni No.22, Khet No.59.
of lands was allotted for the purpose of residential house to each of the companysharer.
Suman Devi.
yards of land and his sons also companystructed pucca houses on the remaining 1400 sq.
Only becoming a companyshareholder of the land does number prove a sale deed or Will as fake or sham document.
It stands admitted that in terms thereof Suman Devi got her name mutated in the Land Revenue Record on or about 26.9.2002.
It is stated that Suman Devi later on executed a Bainama in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi, younger brother of appellant No.1 on the basis of the said Will.
On or about 1.8.2002, however, another Will was executed by Tika Ram Tyagi who had been suffering from throat cancer in respect of the same property in favour of Smt.
The learned ACJM, Gautam Budh Nagar, however, dismissed the said companyplaint petition, stating Case called.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Suman Devi were companykhatedars in respect of Khasra No.59 having an area of 2.0920 hectares of land situated in village Bhangel Begampur, PS Phase II, Noida.
He also said to have companystructed 10 shops.
Appellants and the respondent No.3 companyplainant are companysharers.
Husband of Smt.
File be put up at 3 pm for order.
Raghuvansh Tyagi, father of respondent No.3, and Tika Ram Tyagi, father of Smt.
