Gurmail Kaur after 15.09.1973 started living with Maghar Singh, brother of Bhajan Singh in Village Jalowal and thereafter never returned to Bhajan Singh.
Bhajan Singh was married with Gurmail Kaur.
Bhajan Singh executed a registered Will dated 02.09.1986 in favour of Gurcharan Singh, Gurnam Singh and Kulwant Singh, the appellants.
Defendants treated Bhajan Singh as member of their family and served them.
Divorce between Bhajan Singh and Gurmail Kaur took place on 15.09.1973 and Gurmail Kaur thereafter started residing with Maghar Singh, brother of Bhajan Singh and never came back to Bhajan Singh.
When Bhajan Singh has admitted the execution of Will dated 02.09.1986, Courts below companymitted error in number accepting the Will due to want of examination of attesting witness whereas Will was proved by the defendants appellants by producing scribe, who scribed the Will as well as clerk from Registrars Office, who proved the registration of the Will.
It was further pleaded in the plaint that defendant effected a Family Settlement on 15.06.1994 in which suit property was given to the plaintiffs in equal share.
It is further submitted that oral Family Settlement dated 15.06.1994 giving the suit property by Bhajan Singh in favour of the defendants was a valid settlement even though defendants were number related by blood as Uncle and Nephew but Bhajan Singh was living with the defendants after the divorce throughout.
Admitting the claim of plaintiffs appellants in the suit filed against the defendant Bhajan Singh for declaration cannot be termed as any fraud played on Bhajan Singh or the Court.
A replication was also filed by the plaintiffs where Family Settlement as well as the Will dated 02.09.1986 was denied.
Trial companyrt held the suit to be within limitation.
On the basis of admission by the defendant of the claim of the plaintiffs after decree dated 09.01.1995 mutation was also affected of the land in suit in favour of the plaintiff on 03.03.1995.
Bhajan Singh out of his free will executed a Will on 02.09.1986 in favour of the defendants.
167 of 19.05.1998 praying for declaration to the effect that decree and judgment in Civil Suit No.
Gurmail Kaur also took alongwith her both the daughters who were minors at that time to Village Jalowal where they all resided with Maghar Singh.
It was pleaded by defendants appellants that after divorce of Bhajan Singh and Gurmail Kaur on 15.09.1973, Bhajan Singh was residing with defendants, who were serving Bhajan Singh.
The execution of registered Will by Bhajan Singh on 02.09.1986 in favour of the defendants and further his admission that all the claim of the defendants in Suit No.
Bhajan Singh died on 24.04.1998.
The trial companyrt also returned a finding that there was numberelement of fraud, misrepresentation or companyrcion in obtaining a decree dated 09.01.1995.
It is the defendants, who are in possession of suit land, in whose favour, mutation has also been affected.
A Civil Suit No.
On the same day, i.e., 03.12.1994, Bhajan Singh also recorded his statement in the Court, where he stated that averments in the plaint are companyrect and he has numberobjection if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
The plaintiffs also went alongwith Gurmail Kaur after the divorce and throughout lived with Maghar Singh and Gurmail Kaur and never came to see their father Bhajan Singh.
There was numberrelation between Gurmail Kaur and Bhajan Singh after the divorce dated 15.09.1973.
The decree dated 09.01.1995 was number based on any fraud or companyrcion.
The High Court affirmed the decree of First Appellate Court.
In her statement, PW1 has admitted that she never came to see her father.
Gurmail Kaur also filed a suit for maintenance against Bhajan Singh, which was dismissed for number prosecution.
The defendants filed Regular Second Appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2.3 In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that defendant had executed a registered Will in favour of the plaintiffs, which was made as per defendants free will and companysent and which was attested and duly registered by Sub Registrar.
Bhajan Singh at his own free will had decided to give the suit property to the appellants, which is clearly depicted by executing a registered Will dated 02.09.1986 in favour of the appellants and further after the decree dated 09.01.1995 accepting the mutation in favour of the appellants.
In the suit filed by the defendants Suit No.
2.6 In the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the present appellants, who were impleaded as defendants filed a written statement refuting the plaint allegations.
In the Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants, the decree of the First Appellate Court was companyfirmed.
In the Regular Second Appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed by the High Court Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the decree dated 09.01.1995 which has, otherwise, been proved to have been suffered by Bhajan Singh in favour of the appellant, companyld be ignored by the learned Ist Appellate Court on the ground of number registration particularly when the decree was based on earlier family settlement?
Between Bhajan Singh and Gurmail Kaur, a divorce in writing was entered on 15.09.1973 whereafter Gurmail Kaur started residing with one Maghar Singh, the brother of Bhajan Singh in village Jalowal.
This appeal has been filed by the defendants aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court.
In the suit, a written statement was filed by the defendant Bhajan Singh on 03.12.1994 where he admitted the plaint allegations and also prayed that decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs.
2.7 The plaintiffs aggrieved by the said judgment filed an appeal before District Judge.
Signature Not Verified The brief facts of the case giving rise to this Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2020.03.19 183710 IST Reason appeal are 2.1 One Bhajan Singh was owner of suit land situated in Village Siraj Majra, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2.4 The Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amloh decreed the suit on 09.01.1995.
The plaintiffs, i.e., Angrez Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, after divorce went with their mother and lived with Maghar Singh and never returned to Bhajan Singh.
The issue No.
2.2 Bhajan Singh resided in Village Siraj Majra with Gurcharan Singh, Gurnam Singh and Kulwant Singh, the appellants, who looked after Bhajan Singh.
The Will dated 02.09.1986 was validly executed, which Will was admitted by Bhajan singh in his written statement filed in Suit No.
The plaintiffs had numberconcern with Bhajan Singh, who was residing with defendants at Village Siraj Majra.
Two daughters namely Angrez Kaur and Paramjit Kaur were born to Bhajan Singh with Gurmail Kaur.
The divorce between Bhajan Singh and Gurmail Kaur took place on 15.09.1973 and thereafter for 25 years, Bhajan Singh lived away from his wife and daughters and it was the defendants, who were taking care of Bhajan Singh.
556 of 21.09.1994, Bhajan Singh filed a statement admitting the claim of the defendants including the companyfirmation regarding execution of Will in favour of the defendants.
The trial companyrt vide its judgment and order dated 05.03.2003 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
2.5 After death of Bhajan Singh both Angrez Kaur and Paramjit Kaur filed Civil Suit No.
556 was admitted by Bhajan Singh, who filed the written statement and got recorded his statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs.
The Courts have found that Bhajan Singh lived with the defendants after the divorce, who were taking care of Bhajan Singh.
556 of 21.09.1994 decided on 09.01.1995 in respect of the suit property is wrong, without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative qua the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs as heirs of the said Bhajan Singh.
The first appeal filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and allowed by learned Additional District Judge vide its judgment dated 13.08.2004.
The vote and ration card of Bhajan Singh was with the defendants, who were serving him like their father.
556 dated 21.09.1994 was filed by the appellants impleading the Bhajan Singh as the sole defendant praying for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit land.
3472 of 2004 of the appellants.
The trial companyrt has also returned a finding that it has been proved from the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff that they never visited their father from Village Jalowal, which clearly establish that Bhajan Singh resided with the defendants, who used to look after and serve him.
3 regarding Will dated 02.09.1986 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that defendant failed to prove the Will dated 02.09.1986 since one of the attesting witnesses was alive but was number produced by the defendants.
The plaintiffs respondents suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial companyrt which decree was reversed by First Appellate Court decreeing the suit.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This is a defendants appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab Haryana dismissing the Regular Second Appeal No.
