Banti and Smt.
Banti would number affect the reversionary rights of Darshan Singh and would operate only during the life time of Bhana.
The will dated 5th January, 1973 came to be executed in supersession of the earlier will dated 11 th April, 1956 and for the aforesaid reason, it was stated by the testator that the entire property after his death be devolved to his daughter Smt.
According to the will dated 5th January, 1973, the original plaintiffs became entitled to claim the property of Bhana deceased including the land in dispute to the exclusion of the present appellant.
Amriti, Udi alias Iqbal Kaur and son Darshan Singh in three equal shares.
It was stated in the will dated 5th January, 1973 that Smt.
It was claimed by the NEETU KHAJURIA Date 2019.04.04 171441 IST Reason plaintiffs that Bhana, son of Moti was the original owner of the subject properties in dispute.
The plaintiffs along with one Gurdev Kaur were the children of aforesaid Bhana from his first wife Bhago and after the death of his wife Bhago , Bhana was remarried to Smt.
Banti companyld number be held to be the absolute owner of the suit property even after the companymencement of the Act, 1956 inasmuch as her title to the suit property was to operate only during the life time of Bhana who died on 27 th March, 1973.
The judgment of the Court of appeal came to be challenged at the instance of the appellant defendant and second appeal before the High Court also came to be dismissed under the impugned judgment dated 28th July, 2004 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.
On the other hand, the appellant in separate litigation between the parties reached upto the Regular Second Appeal number 933/1984 and the validity of the will dated 5th January, 1973 came to be upheld by the High Court vide judgment dated 28 th July, 2004 and the Special Leave Petition Civil number 24724/2004 preferred at the instance of the appellant came to be dismissed as number pressed.
15/1975 was filed by the plaintiff for possession.
193/1955 filed at her instance Smt.
The aforesaid gift came to be challenged by the original plaintiff Darshan Singh in a Civil Suit No.
Banti bearing number 3813 sanctioned on 25 th February, 1950.
Original plaintiffs, Darshan Singh son of Bhana, and Amriti and Udhi alias Iqbal Kaur, daughters of Bhana filed a suit for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by possession of the subject land in dispute.
The trial Court in the instant proceedings held that the suit land had been allotted in lieu of the original land during the companysolidation proceedings.
Banti but because of strained relations of Bhana and Smt.
On reappraisal of the evidence on record, the appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court with regard to Banti having become absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of an oral gift executed by Bhana in the year 1950 and the gift came to be set aside and held that Smt.
It was claimed that Smt.
Banti was residing separately for almost 20 years and questioned her character having illegitimate relations with Maal Singh, son of Nihal Singh, r o Bada Pind and despite that, the testator has taken care of her maintenance.
Both the wills set up by the plaintiffs dated 5th January, 1973 and the defendants dated 21 st February, 1973 were held to be executed by Bhana.
The will as claimed by the plaintiffs dated 5 th January, 1973 was also companytested.
Mr. J.M. Khanna, learned companynsel for the appellant submits that once this fact is admitted by the parties that Smt.
Banti qua the ancestral property would number affect the reversionary rights of Darshan Singh original plaintiff .
103/1953 for declaration under the customary law.
Since Bhana died on 27th March, 1973 and prior to his death, he had executed a registered will dated 5th January, 1973 whereby he bequeathed his estate in favour of plaintiffs Darshan Singh and others by excluding Smt.
The Civil Appeal No.
Banti was to companytinue to have the rights in the property only during the life time of Bhana and was number an absolute owner.
Banti by way of gift for her maintenance way back in the year 1950.
She even denied the earlier litigation between the parties whereby reversionary rights of Darshan Singh came to be upheld.
To settle the dispute between them, Bhana parted the suit land to Smt.
101/1954 preferred by Banti against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by learned District Judge vide judgment dated 29th November, 1954 and the Regular Second Appeal No.
In furtherance thereof, mutation was also entered in favour of Smt.
Banti came to be dismissed by the High Court on 3rd November, 1959.
Banti, they started living separately.
There was even a litigation between them.
The appellant companytested the suit and it was claimed by her that Banti was the absolute owner of the suit property.
In reference to the aforesaid will dated 5 th January, 1973, Civil Suit No.
Bhana and Smt.
The aforesaid civil suit filed at the instance of Darshan Singh was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30 th June, 1954 and it was held that the aforesaid gift by late Bhana in favour of Smt.
Banti had a daughter, namely, Ajit Kaur appellant from the aforesaid wedlock.
Ajit Kaur, original defendant number 1 and defendant number 25 appellant herein and other daughter Gurdev Kaur.
It was claimed by him that the aforesaid gift by late Bhana in favour of Smt.
It may be relevant to numbere that the finding of fact recorded under the impugned judgment in reference to a later will dated 21st February, 1973 on which much emphasis was laid by the present appellant, it was observed that the propounder of the will was legally required number only to prove the due execution of the will but also to dispel all suspicious circumstances which may have existed in its due execution of the aforesaid will and it was observed that the later will dated 21 st February, 1973 claimed by the present appellant cannot be taken to be duly proved and being a finding of fact duly supported by the material on record, we find numberperversity or manifest error in the finding to be reviewed by this Court in the instant appeal.
Rastogi, J. This is the defendants appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 28th July, 2004 and arises in the following circumstances.
Per companytra, Ms. S. Janani, learned companynsel for the respondents, while supporting the findings recorded by the first appellate Court and companyfirmed by the High Court in appeal submits that the subject land in dispute was mutated in the name of Smt.
933/1984 decided on 28th July, 2004 held to be validly executed and based on the recital of the will, it was held that the plaintiffs became entitled to succeed to the entire property of Bhana deceased including the land in dispute to the exclusion of defendant appellant herein .
