IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 117 RSA-535-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision.:20.01.2025 Rajinder Kaur …..Appellant Vs. Pargat Singh (deceased) through LRs .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. M.S. Bah, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for mandatory injunc on filed by plain ff Pargat Singh (respondents through his LRs herein) against sole defendant Rajinder Kaur (appellant herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 27.10.2017. The appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 02.12.2019. Against this concurrent findings, the defendant has approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal. 2. One Hardev Singh was owner in possession of the suit property, which is a residen al house. Plain ff claimed ownership of the same on the ground that Hardev Singh during his life me had executed a registered Will dated 16.05.2011 in his favour, bequeathing his en re estate including the suit property. Hardev Singh had died on 04.02.2012 and so, on the basis of Will of Hardev Singh, plain ff had become exclusive owner of the house. It was further the case of the plain ff that Jasbir Singh, husband of the defendant and who was the brother of plain ff Pargat was residing in a foreign country and so, plain ff accepted the request of the defendant and allowed her to use a por on of the disputed house, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.21 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-535-2021 (O&M) considering the close rela onship amongst the par es with the specific condi on she will not claim any right, tle or interest therein. Later on, defendant started picking up quarrel with the plain ff and also tried to set up tle. With these averments plain ff prayed for a decree of mandatory injunc on to ask the defendant to stop the user of the house in dispute but she refused to do so. 3. Defendant i.e. appellant herein alleged the Will dated 16.05.2011 set up by the plain ff to be a forged and fabricated document. According to her, she also used to render services to her father-in-law Hardev Singh during his life me and who had par oned the en re estate to his sons. 4. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par es was taken on record. Trial Court found that plain ff had successfully proved his tle based upon the registered Will dated 16.05.2011 in his favour as executed by the previous exclusive owner Shri Hardev Singh. The case of the defendant regarding any previous par on was found to be not proved. It is also found that defendant had been permied to use a por on of the house by the plain ff and thus, she was only a licensee and as such she could not claim any birth right in the suit property. With these findings, suit was decreed. The findings returned by the Appellate Court have been affirmed by the first Appellate Court. 5. Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the Will set up by the plain ff was a forged and fabricated document and that appellant-defendant had also a right to reside in the suit property being the wife of one of the sons of Hardev Singh. 6. A@er hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length, this Court does not find any merit in the conten ons raised by him. 7. It has been found by the Courts below that registered Will NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.21 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-535-2021 (O&M) dated 16.05.2011 (Ex.P2) is well proved on record by the tes mony of one of the aes ng witnesses namely Amrik Singh, Numberdar. Defendant could not prove her stand that the Will was forged or fabricated document. Even no ques on was put to the aes ng witness in this regard. It was, thus found that based upon this Will, plain ff had become exclusive owner of the suit property. 8. It may also be added that defendant-appellant does not fall within the scope of natural successors of Hardev Singh and as such, she has no right to assail the illegality or validity of the registered Will executed by Hardev Singh in favour of plain ff Pargat Singh. 9. The appellant had also placed reliance upon the document Mark ‘B’ dated 08.08.2011 to claim her possession over the suit property. It was no ced by the Appellate Court that though document Mark ‘B’ was inadmissible in evidence but even if the contents thereof were considered, the same revealed that defendant-appellant was simply allowed to stay in the house by Hardev Singh, as husband of the defendant-appellant i.e. Jasbir Singh was residing abroad. Thus, the said document relied by the defendant simply revealed that she was only a licensee and had been granted permission by Hardev Singh to use a por on of the house with the condi on that when her husband returns to India, Hardev Singh will give share to Jasbir Singh. However, no document was placed on record that Jasbir Singh i.e. husband of defendant was given any share by Hardev Singh and rather, as per the Will (Ex.P2) duly proved on record, it is only plain ff Pargat Singh, who was bequeathed the en re property. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when defendant-appellant has been found to be only licensee of the suit property with no right therein, the Courts below have not commied any error in decreeing the suit. 11. On account of en re discussion, this Court does not find any NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.21 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-535-2021 (O&M) scope to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. 12. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE January 20, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.21 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document