IN THE HI 111 Surender Sing Smt. Santosh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, Article 227 of dated 18.09.2 Sessions Judg (Annexure P2) application file had been allo been rejected. 2. respondents/p declaration to No.344 on 28 Virender Sing defendant/pet E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Singh Lamba Vs. osh and another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Ajit Singh Lamba, Advo Mr. Vivek Sheoran, Advoca for the petitioner. *** PTA, J. The defendant has filed 7 of the Constitution of India seekin 09.2024 (Annexure P1) passed by Judge, thereby setting aside th P2) passed by the Court of learned n filed by the petitioner/defendant allowed; and the suit filed by the ted. Brief facts of the ts/plaintiffs had filed a suit on 03 n to the effect that the Will dated 28.07.2014 which is shown to hav Singh Lamba son of late Sh. /petitioner, is false, fictitious, fabr D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-44-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA dvocate ocate led the present petition under eeking setting aside of judgment by the Additional District and the order dated 4.10.2017 rned Civil Judge, Hissar whereby ant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the respondents/plaintiffs had the case are that the 03.04.2015 (Annexure P3) for ted 25.07.2014 registered at Sr. have been executed by late Sh. Sh. Ramji Lal in favour of fabricated, illegal, null and void 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and prepared of Sub-Registr order dated 0 Hissar, on the to be set asid injunction re alienating, tra dispossessing No.2426 of vil 3. in the said su P4). Subseque application un claiming that t Will dated 25. the consequen of Virender Si and therefore, 4. application of by the learned by way of CM Additional Dis red by defendant in collusion with gistrar Hissar; and mutation No.24 ed 08.01.2015 of Assistant Collecto the basis of above Will is also illegal aside; and as a consequential relie restraining the defendant from , transferring, creating any encumb sing the plaintiffs of the land as f village Daulatpur Sub-Tehsil Uklan The petitioner-defendant d suit and filed written statement d quently, on 17.08.2017 the petitio n under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC see hat the plaintiffs had no right or cau 25.07.2014 (Annexure P5) execute quent mutation entries on the basi r Singh namely Ram Piyari who wa fore, during her lifetime suit of the p Vide order dated 04.10.20 n of the petitioner filed under Orde rned Civil Judge. The said order wa CMA/358/2017 dated 02.11.2017 ( l District and Sessions Judge; and ith witnesses, scribe and official o.2426 sanctioned pursuant to ector, 1st Grade Barwala, District egal and null; and both are liable relief of permanent prohibitory from claiming implementing, mbrance on the basis of Will of d as detailed in the mutation klana, District Hissar. ant had duly put in appearance ent dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure titioner had also moved present seeking rejection of the plaint cause of action to challenge the cuted by late Virender Singh and basis of the said Will, as mother o was Class I heir, was still alive; he plaintiffs is barred by law. 0.2017 (Annexure P2) the said rder 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed r was challenged by respondents 17 (Annexure P8), before the ld. and vide impugned judgment 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document dated 18.09.2 allowed. 5. that the plaint 7 Rule 11 CPC right to challen favour of the p namely Ram P expired on 29 lifetime of Ra brother of Vire cause of actio Thus, the plain 6. Appellate Cou the Hindu Su Hindu Success devolve firstly the class-I hei expired, there plaintiffs. Even Civil Court. 7. 09.2024 (Annexure P1), the appea It is submitted by learned laint was rightly rejected by the lea CPC as the plaintiffs had no cause of allenge the Will dated 25.07.2014 the petitioneras the Class-I heir of m Piyari was still alive. It is submit n 29.7.2014; and the plaintiffs ha Ram Pyaari. Therefore, the plain f Virender Singh, being the class-II h ction to file the present suit again plaint was rightly rejected by the lea It is submitted that in pass Court has sidelined the principle of Succession Act, 1956. It is conte cession Act, 1956 specifically prov rstly upon heirs specified in class-l a I heir was admittedly living when th here was no occasion or cause Even a finding to this effect was cor No other argument is raise peal of the plaintiffs has been rned counsel for the petitioner learned trial court under Order se of action. The plaintiffs had no executed by Virender Singh in of Virender Singh i.e. his mother bmitted that Virender Singh had s had filed the suit during the plaintiffs - who are sisters and II heirs of the deceased- had no gainst the petitioner/defendant. e learned trial Court. passing the impugned order the le of applicability of Section 8 of ontended that Section 8 of the rovides that the property shall l and then upon class-ll. Once, n the executant of the Will had se of action in favour of the correctly so recorded by the Id. aised on behalf of the petitioner. 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. perused the 9. respondents/p dated 25.07.2 Lamba, who executed the s way of the pr sought declara the petitioner by filing writt the petitioner (Annexure P respondents/p view of the fa mother of the 10. Civil Judge (J petitioner with issueless; and the general ru the heirs and defendants. I have heard learned cou case file in great detail. The petitioner/defe ts/plaintiffs are real brothers and 7.2014 (Annexure P-5), was execut ho is also real brother of the p the said Will dated 25.7.2014 only e present suit (Annexure P-3), the claration that the Will dated 25.07 ner is false and fabricated. The pet ritten statement (Annexure P-4). S oner filed the present application P-6), seeking rejection of the pla ts/plaintiffs had no cause of actio e fact that the class-I successor of t the executant of the Will, was still a Vide order dated 04.10.2 e (Jr. Division) Hissar, allowed with the reasoning that Virender Si and as per the Section 8 of the Hin al rules and Schedule attached there and they have no cause of action counsel for the petitioner and defendant and the and sisters. The registered Will ecuted by late Sh. Virender Singh e parties. Virender Singh had nly in favour of the petitioner. By the respondents/plaintiffs had 5.07.2014 executed in favour of petitioner had resisted the suit . Subsequently, on 17.8.2017, ion under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plaint on the ground that the ction to file the present suit in of the executant of the Will i.e. till alive. 10.2017 (Annexure P2) learned d the said application of the er Singh had died unmarried and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and hereto, plaintiffs fall in class-II of tion to file the suit against the 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. 4.10.2017 was of the appea impugned ord and Sessions J that the right from the right the mother w action to chall 12. denied that th their mother; cause of actio herself challen her lifetime in Versus Surind declaration ag Pyaari is owne and that the W shown to hav Ramji Lal in fabricated and An appeal (Annexure P-8), was filed by the respondents on 0 ppeal, mother of the parties ex order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure ns Judge, has set aside the order da ight of the plaintiffs to challenge the ight of their mother since they hav er whereas, the mother being clas hallenge the Will. I find no infirmity in the im at the plaintiffs had interest in the her; and therefore, it cannot be st action. Moreover, it is imperative t allenged the said Will dated 25.07 e in a Civil Suit No. 267-C dated 16. rinder Singh Lamba". Ram Piyari ha n against the petitioner to the ef wner in possession of the suit land b he Will dated 25.07.2014 registered have been executed by late Viren l in favour of petitioner/defend and illegal document. However, the 8), against the said order dated on 02.11.2017. During pendency expired on 20.05.2020. Vide xure P1) the Additional District er dated 4.10.2017 (P-1), holding e the impugned Will was distinct have a possible interest through class-I heir had direct cause of he impugned order. It cannot be the suit property even through e strictly said that they had no ve to note that Ram Pyari had 5.07.2014 (Annexure P-5),during 16.10.2017 titled as "Ram Pyari ri had filed the said civil suit for e effect that the plaintiff Ram nd by way of natural succession; ered at Sr. No.344 of 28.07.2014 irender Singh Lamba son of Sh. fendant being false, fictitious, r, the said suit was withdrawn by 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the plaintiff compromise w 13. noted facts, t dated 4.10.201 Ram Pyaari vide order dated 08. ise was entered into between the pe Accordingly, keeping in vie ts, the learned Appellate Court has .2017 by observing as follows: - “20.Now if this court examines bearing in mind the proposition can challenge the Will and th succession; then being class-II he said to have a direct interest in t Will so long as class-I heir m deceased] as if Virender Singh Lam the property would have been inh the plaintiffs or the defendant. Ho an interest still exists as in case t open natural succession of late Vi property would devolve upon the after the death of the mother, if devolve upon the plaintiffs and th believed that being class-II heirs, to challenge the Will since the interest in the property, which bes the present suit upon them… xxx 22. Learned counsel for the def notice of this Court that Smt. parties) had already challenged th life-time in Civil Suit No. 267- "Ram Pyari v. Surinder Singh La 08.11.2017 (Annexure P9) as a e petitioner and his mother. view the entirety of the above t has rightly set aside the order ines the claim of the plaintiffs tion of law about a person who d the ibid scheme of natural II heir, the plaintiffs cannot be t in the property involved in the eir mother is/was alive [now h Lamba had died intestate then n inherited by mother and not by t. However, possibility of having ase the Will is set-aside, it would te Virender Singh Lamba and the n the mother of the parties and er, if she dies intestate, it would d the defendant. So, even if, it is eirs, the plaintiffs have no right they still have some possible h bestow a cause of action to file defendant has brought to the mt. Ram Pyari (mother of the ed the impugned Will during her -C dated 16.10.2017 titled as h Lamba", by filing a civil suit 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ju 14. District Judge “Ashutosh Sha DEL 666. 15. at the stage of material, exce be considered Housing and Finder DOC ID Sa and others for invoking c the plaint wo addition or su issue on merit against the present defendant an arrived at a compromise with th the execution of the Will to be c does not find any merit in th judgment and decree has been pa the appeal on 8.11.2017. Moreov challenge the impugned Will is di mother since plaintiffs have po mother whereas mother being cla action to challenge the Will.” In passing the impugned dge, Hissar relied upon judgme Sharma and others vs. Sita Devi a Even more importantly, it e of consideration of application un except the plaint or the documents ered. Reference judgment of Hon’b nd Industries Limited vs. Ashok C ID # 2406865. Again, in “Kamala hers”, (2008) 12 SCC 661 the Hon’ble ng clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 C would be relevant. For this pur subtraction. No amount of evide erits of the matter would not be w nt and in the said civil suit, she ith the defendant and admitted be correct. However, this Court in this argument because said n passed during the pendency of oreover, right of the plaintiffs to is distinct from the right of their e possible interest through the g class I heir has direct cause of gned order, the ld. Additional gment of Delhi High Court in evi and others” 2011 SCC online , it is settled position in law that n under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, no nts annexed with the plaint, can n’ble Supreme Court in “Eldeco ok Vidyarthi and others” Law ala and others v. K. T. Eshwara n’ble Supreme Court opined that 11 C.P.C., only the averments in purpose, there cannot be any vidence can be looked into. The be within the realm of the Court 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at that stage. enter a disput 16. beyond the m plaint. For this accordingly, di 17. 10.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo ge. The Court at that stage would n puted question of fact of law. In rejecting the plaint, the e mandate of law in considering this reason, as well, the present pe dismissed. Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No uld not consider any evidence or the learned trial court had gone ing materials extraneous to the t petition deserves to be, and is if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document