IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 106 RSA-5650-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision.:28.03.2025 Anu Chopra and another …..Appellants Vs. Aar4 Lamba and others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for declaraon and permanent injuncon regarding property in dispute filed by plainff Aar Lamba (contesng respondent No.1 herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 26.02.2016. Aggrieved by the same, two of the defendants namely Anu Chopra and Paras Chopra (appellants herein) filed appeal but it was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 18.04.2018. Against these concurrent findings of the Courts below, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal. 2. In order to avoid any confusion, pares shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. Trial Court record was also called and same has been perused. 3. Suit property was admi2edly owned by Sh. Madan Lal Chopra. His only son Shiv Kumar had expired on 19.07.2003. Defendants Nos.1 to 4 (appellants & respondents No: 3 & 4 herein) are the widowed daughter-in- law and grandchildren of Sh. Madan Lal Chopra. Plainff Aar Lamba (respondent No: 1 herein) is admi2edly the daughter of the sister of Sh. Madan Lal Chopra. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.01 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5650-2018 (O&M) -2- 4. Plainff claimed ¼ th share in the suit property on the basis of registered Will dated 17.05.2005 (Ex.P1) executed by Sh. Madan Lal Chopra. Other ¾ share was bequeathed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Plainff also claimed that she had been adopted by Sh. Madan Lal Chopra, as his daughter. Defendant No.5 M/s Volga Restaurant (respondent No.2 herein) being a tenant on a part of the suit property, was impleaded as performa defendant. As defendants had refused to admit the claim of the plainff on the basis of Will, so plainff brought the suit seeking declaraon that she was owner of ¼ share in the suit property and further prayed to restrain the defendants from alienang the suit property in any manner. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 denied the plainff to be adopted daughter of Madan Lal Chopra. They further disputed valid execuon of the Will dated 17.05.2005 as propounded by the plainff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. AEer framing necessary issues and taking evidence produced by the pares, trial Court decreed the suit and the first Appellate Court upheld the findings. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court that Will was not proved to be validly executed by Sh. Madan Lal Chopra. Plainff had failed to prove that she was the adopted daughter of Sh. Madan Lal Chopra and that it was incorrectly spulated in the Will that plainff was adopted daughter of the testator, which creates suspicion regarding the validity of the Will. 8. AEer hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the paper-book along with the trial Court record, this Court does not find merit in any of the aforesaid contenons. 9. Perusal of the Will Ex.P-1 of Shri Madan Lal Chopra, as propounded by the plainff would reveal that it is purported to be scribed NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.01 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5650-2018 (O&M) -3- by Sh. Sunder Lal, document writer, and a2ested by two witnesses namely Parveen Kumar & Sander Kumar, Advocate. It is a registered document, having been duly registered on the deed of its execuon itself i.e. 17.05.2005 before Sub-Registrar, Jagadhari. 10. Plainff has examined one of the a2esng witnesses Parveen Kumar as PW-2 and scribe Sunder Lal as PW-4, both of whom have proved all the necessary legal requirements to prove the due execuon of a valid Will. PW-3 Rameshwar, registraon Clerk in the office of Sub-Register Jagadhari proved the due registraon of the Will. The credibility of none of these witnesses could be impeached, as has been observed by both the Courts below. 11. Apart from the above, perusal of the Will further reveals that the Will is duly signed by Sh. Madan Lal Chopra in fluent English, who apparently was an educated person. Sh. Madan Lal Chopra had expired on 11.06.2009 i.e. more than 04 years aEer the execuon and registraon of the Will in queson and never got it cancelled. 12. Not only above, the first Appellate Court has further observed that defendant Anu Chopra during her tesmony admi2ed the photograph affixed on the Will to be that of Madan Lal Chopra. She could not raise any objecon about mental health of the deceased at the me of execuon of the Will on account of her own admission to the effect that ll his death, Sh. Madan Lal Chopra was fully fit. 13. Although the plainff - respondent could not produce cogent evidence regarding her adopon by Sh. Madan Lal Chopra but learned first Appellate Court has rightly observed that said plainff was admi2edly the daughter of real sister of deceased Madan Lal Chopra and thus, closely related to him and even if, it be assumed that she had failed to prove valid adopon by the deceased, though this fact was duly menoned in the Will, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.01 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5650-2018 (O&M) -4- sll that in itself would not be sufficient to hold the Will to be a forged or fabricated document. The Will in itself conferred rights in the suit property to the plainff to the extent of 1/4th share. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, simply because plainff was not able to produce cogent evidence regarding her adopon by Sh. Madan Lal Chopra as daughter, could not be a reason to discard the Will, as has been rightly held by the Courts below. 15. Consequent to above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciaon of evidence. As such, the present appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. All the miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 28, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.01 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document