Prono Bhajno alias alias Bhajo v. Harbans Sing s Singh
Case Details
RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT FOR THE ST HARYANA AT CHAN E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH 104 RSA N RSA No.2351 of 1992 (O&M) Reserv Reserved on:10.09.2025 Pronounced on:16.09.2025 Prono Bhajno alias alias Bhajo ...Appellant Vs Harbans Sing s Singh (since deceased) through LRs h LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: ocate Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for LRs of respondents No.1 and .1 and 2. Mr. RiteshTomar, Advocate for respondent No.2(i). -.- AMARINDE INDER SINGH GREWAL J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant be g the ant before this Court challenging the judgment and nt and decree dated 12.10.1992 pass passed by the learned 1st Appellate ellate Court whereb whereby the judgment and decree da y the ree dated 05.06.1987 passed by the learned trial trial Court decreeing the suit of th been t of the appellant-plaintiff has been reversed and d and while allowing the appeal of t ts, the al of the respondents-defendants, the suit was dism s dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, p to in nce, parties are being referred to in terms of their f their status before the learned trial C trial Court. 3. In brief, the facts are that it for that plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration re tion regarding suit property as detaile plaint, detailed in the head note of the plaint, situated in vi d in village Bathe Bhaini, Tehsil Patti effect il Patti, District Amritsar to the effect that the plain e plaintiff is in possession of 1/5th are of share of land qua the share of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -2- Tarlochan Si Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh o Will ingh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1 1.03.1981 and defendants No.1 and 2 and 2 are owners of 1/5th share and e and defendants N ants No.3 to 5 are owners of 3/5th ochan share in the estate of Tarlochan Singh, with with the consequential relief of p h the of permanent injunction with the direction that
Legal Reasoning
on that defendants No.1 and 4 should ff and hould not dispossess the plaintiff and further aliena enate the suit land in favour of any h son of any person. Tarlochan Singh son of Sadhu Sin hu Singh had pre-deceased his wife rs. A wife and he had five daughters. A pedigree tab ee table is drawn as under to bette nship o better understand the relationship between the p n the parties. Tarlochan Sing n Singh Wife (pre-deceas deceased) Bhajno Daughter (Plaintiff) Mahindro Daughter (D. No.2) Jito Jogindero Chhindo Daugther Daughter Daughter Daugth (D. No.5) (D. No.4) (D. No.3) (D. No Harbans Singh Son (D.No.1) 4. The plaintiff propounded a Will ed by a Will dated 31.03.1981 executed by Tarlochan Si han Singh bequeathing his estate in f ers as te in favour of his five daughters as mentioned ab ned above in the ratio of 1/5th share ff and share each in favour of plaintiff and defendants N ants No.3 to 5 and 1/5th share in fav nd 2. in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. The said Wil Will was registered in the office of ever, ice of Sub-Registrar, Patti. However, defendants N ants No.1 and 4 propounded another W gedly other Will dated 24.01.1984 allegedly executed by T ed by Tarlochan Singh whereby they w of the they were declared sole owners of the suit property operty and on the basis of same, they m ss the they made attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from ff from Khasra Nos.2//25, 3//22/1, 5// so got /1, 5//11/2/1 and 38//25 and also got PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -3- mutations of of the land bearing Nos.1010 and ames 0 and 1516 sanctioned in their names excluding al ing all other legal heirs and compl completely ignoring the Will date d 31.03.1981. 981. Hence, the civil suit. 5. The suit was contested by de filing by defendants No.1 to 4 by filing written state statement wherein preliminary ob n of ary objections qua suppression of material facts al facts and plaintiff not coming with c n. On with clean hands etc. were taken. On merits, it wa it was stated that defendant No.1 an No.4 o.1 and husband of defendant No.4 took care of are of Tarlochan Singh throughout his e and out his life and thus, out of love and affection, he on, he bequeathed the Will dated 2 r and ated 24.01.1984 in their favour and cancelled his his earlier Will dated 31.03.1981 o ations 1981 on the basis of which mutations were sanctio anctioned in their favour as well. T on of ell. They denied the possession of plaintiff over ff over 1/5th share of the land in dis d that in dispute. It was also stated that defendant No ant No.5 got executed a fabricated W d got ated Will dated 24.01.1984 and got sanctioned m ned mutations on the basis of said Wil ted by id Will but the same were rejected by SDO (Civil), Civil), Patti exercising the power of er of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, rade, SDO (C) afte C) after affording opportunity of leadin leading evidence to all parties. 6. Replication was filed by the pla verted he plaintiff whereby she controverted the pleas of d as of defendants and reiterated the plea he pleas taken in the plaint. 7. On the basis of pleadings, the ed as s, the learned trial Court framed as many as eigh s eight issues including the issue of re e oral e of relief. After appreciating the oral as well as do l as documentary evidence led by bo d trial by both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed ecreed the suit and declared the plaint ion of plaintiff to be owner in possession of 1/5th share of are of the estate of Tarlochan Singh Will Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1 1.03.1981 in Village Saidpur and Vill led in d Village Baithe Baini, as detailed in the head note d note of the plaint and defendants No nts No.3 to 5 qua 1/5th share each and h and defendants N ants No.1 and 2 qua 1/5th share, ef of share, with consequential relief of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -4- restraining th ing the defendants No.1 to 4 from alie anner. om alienating the land in any manner. Defendants N ants No.1 and 4 preferred an appeal b ppeal before the learned 1st Appellate ellate Court against against the judgment and decree passe rt and passed by the learned trial Court and the learned 1 rned 1st Appellate Court vide judgmen .1992 dgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 while setting setting aside the judgment and decr trial decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismi dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. e, the intiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff knoc ff knocked the door of this Court by econd urt by way of instant regular second appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appella ated appellant submits that the Will dated 24.01.1984 E 984 Ex.D2 was held to be surrounde tances rounded by suspicious circumstances and therefore erefore, was discarded to be not genu Court. t genuine by the learned trial Court. The said find id finding of the learned trial Court wa iation urt was based on correct appreciation of the eviden evidence led by both the parties and s and thus, the learned 1st Appellate ellate Court gravely gravely erred in reversing the said find nation id finding. There was no explanation offered in th in the Will Ex.D2 as to what w which hat were the circumstances, which compelled T lled Tarlochan Singh to exclude his in his e his other legal heirs when in his earlier Will d Will dated 31.03.1981, he bequeathed all his ueathed his estate in favour of all his legal heirs. eirs. The Will dated 31.03.1981 dated 1, prior in time to Will dated 24.01.1984 E 984 Ex.D2, was admitted by the defe l Will e defendants though the original Will dated 31.03.1 cord. 1.03.1981 was not placed on record. 9. It is further submitted that t 84 is that the Will dated 24.01.1984 is surrounded b nded by suspicious circumstances, as ession , as plaintiff was put in possession of 1/5th share share of the suit property by way of e , as ay of earlier Will dated 31.03.1981, as is evident fro ent from Jamabandi for the year 1984 dated r 1984-85 and even if the Will dated 31.03.1981 was cancelled while executin dated ecuting the subsequent Will dated 24.01.1984, 984, it is not comprehensible as to wh t take s to why Tarlochan Singh did not take PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -5- any steps th eps then to take back possession fro urther ion from the plaintiff. It is further submitted tha ted that even the Will dated 24.01.198 ection 1.1984 was not proved as per Section 63 of the Ind he Indian Succession Act, 1925 (herei ct of (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1925). The The other attesting witness Ajit Sin aithe jit Singh, Sarpanch of village Baithe Bhaini was n s not even examined by defendant wn to endants for the reasons best known to them and test nd testimony of other attesting witnes edible witness DW-7 was not found credible and thus, th us, the Will dated 24.01.1984, thou to be , though registered, is liable to be discarded and ed and in that case, the property is r equal ty is required to be divided in equal shares in fav in favour of legal heirs of Tarlochan hough lochan Singh. Once a Will, though registered, is red, is surrounded by suspicious circu ed as s circumstances and is not proved as per provision visions of Section 63 of the Act of 1 clared ct of 1925, it is liable to be declared null and voi nd void. In support of his content r the ontentions, learned counsel for the appellant reli nt relied upon the judgment passed by urt in sed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Prad Pradhan and others Vs. Kamla Pr sed in a Pradhan and another passed in Civil Appeal ppeal No.3351 of 2014 decided on 21 Vs. on 21.09.2023 and Leela & Ors Vs. Muruganath natham & Ors. Passed in Civil Appe ed on l Appeal No.7578 of 2023 decided on 02.01.2025. 025. Lastly, it is also submitted that a ion as that appellant is still in possession as is evident fr ent from the jamabandi for the year th the e year 2020-2021 attached with the synopsis give
Legal Reasoning
given by learned counsel for the app he appellant. 10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for r bmits el for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the onus e onus to prove fraud and misrepresen erson, presentation is always on the person, who pleads the same. The Will dated 24.01.1 d was 4.01.1984 was obtained by fraud was to be proved roved by the plaintiff, which she faile e was e failed to prove as no evidence was led to prove prove that the Will dated 24.01.1 fraud. 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud. Admittedly, tedly, Tarlochan Singh was living rbans iving with defendant No.1-Harbans Singh son o son of Mahindero daughter of Tarlo ords, Tarlochan Singh. In other words, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -6- Harbans Sing s Singh was grandson of Tarlochan Will ochan Singh. Furthermore, the Will dated 24.01.1 4.01.1984 was duly proved in terms o 1925 erms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and once the ce the execution of the second Will arlier Will is held as duly proved, earlier Will automat utomatically becomes redundant. In n, he t. In support of his contention, he relied upon th upon the judgment passed by the Hon esh e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar (dead (dead) by LRs Vs. Vinod Kumar an to r and others (2012) 4 SCC 387 to contend that d that active participation of the n the the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of ion of the Will or exclusion of na to an of natural heirs cannot lead to an inference tha ce that the Will was not genuine. non- ine. It is also submitted that non examination ation of Ajit Singh, second witness of 4 has ess of the Will dated 24.01.1984 has no relevance, vance, as Section 63(c) of the Act of 1 such ct of 1925 does not contain any such requirement ment and it is settled law that exam esting examination of one of the attesting witnesses is ses is sufficient. In the present case, of the case, DW-7, attesting witness of the Will had dul ad duly proved its execution as vali n the s valid. He further relies upon the judgment pas nt passed by a Coordinate Bench of ingh nch of this Court in Harbans Singh and others V rs Vs. German Singh (dead) throug (5) rough his LRs and others 2011 (5) RCR (Civil) ivil) 799 to contend that if the Will l n it is Will later in time is proved, then it is the later Wil er Will, which would prevail over t er the over the earlier Will, no matter the earlier Will w Will was also a valid execution. 11. I have heard learned counsel fo rused nsel for the parties and have perused with paper bo per book with their able assistance as nce as well as the case laws cited. 12. The only question which is to be ppeal is to be answered in the instant appeal is whether th ther the second Will dated 24.01.198 ms of 1.1984 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of 63 of the Act of 1925? Section 63 o duced n 63 of the Act of 1925 is reproduced herein under: under:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -7- “63. Execution of unprivileged eing eged Wills. Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an exp tual expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so emplo r at ployed or engaged or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will accor ccording to the following rules:-- (a) The testator shall sign or sha l, or r shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other d by ther person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the f the f the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be pear ll be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to as a y to give effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall be attested by h of d by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign ll or sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sig and sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, o ator or, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of h f the t of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; hall son; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of t be e of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one w ame ne witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of a ” of attestation shall be necessary.” 13. A bare perusal of Section 63 of at the 63 of the Act of 1925 reveals that the Will must be ust be signed by the testator or by som by his y someone in his presence and by his direction. T on. The Will must be attested by at each by at least two witnesses and each witness must s must have either seen the testator sig e Will tor sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen een some other person sign the Wi y the the Will, in the presence and by the direction of t on of the testator. However, it is not ses to is not necessary for both witnesses to be present at ent at the same time. Further, Section e Act, ection 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 makes i akes it clear that at least one attesting ned to testing witness has to be examined to prove the exe he execution of the Will. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -8- 14. In the judgment passed by Hon ena y Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan’s c ’s case (supra), which is referred t r both erred to by learned counsel for both parties, follo , following principles were inferred, w red, which are required to be proved: ved:- “i. The court has to consider tw Will er two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and last and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him; ii. It is not required to be prove acy, roved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of be n of the prudent mind has to be applied. iii. A Will is required to fulf ired fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Successi ession Act, that is to say: (a) The testator shall sign or a r it or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other pe his er person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature at it ture or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the o the writing as a Will; (b) It is mandatory to get it atte ses, attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of atte f attestation is necessary; (c) Each of the attesting witnes ator tnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will rson Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence the ence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from fr the onal testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatu natures; (d) Each of the attesting witne the itnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, howeve sses wever, the presence of all witnesses ired; at the same time is not required; iv. For the purpose of proving th east ng the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, the sses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable l be able of giving evidence, shall be examined; v. The attesting witness shou the should speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also t had lso that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence o ce of the testator; PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -9- vi. If one attesting witness can p ill, can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesti sed ttesting witnesses can be dispensed with; vii. Where one attesting witnes Will itness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execut able ecution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called alled to supplement his evidence; viii. Whenever there exists any s n of any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility o e all lity of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it c tor's it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the in nder he initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier. ix. The test of judicial conscienc ling cience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the exec ded execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. I tors es. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testat ll as estator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and e the nd effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain and disposi y of posing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execu Will xecution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Wil Will; x. One who alleges fraud, fabric tera brication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. Howeve such wever, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumst then umstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propo ious ropounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogen ” ogent and convincing explanation.” 15. The factors required to conside s that onsider where the case set up is that the Will was ll was surrounded by suspicious circu ess of s circumstances are; (i) awareness of the testator a tator as to the content as well as the e and as the consequences, (ii) nature and effect of the of the dispositions in the Will; (iii) sou state sound, certain and disposing state of mind of th of the testator; (iv) memory of the t ion f the testator at the time of execution and (v) testat testator executed the Will while actin e acting on his own free Will; PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -10- 16. A perusal of the Will dated 24. at the ed 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 reveals that the testator Tarlo r Tarlochan Singh, who was aged 72 y ion of d 72 years at the time of execution of the Will state ll stated that he executed the Will in sness ill in good health, full consciousness and as per hi per his desire. It is further stated ther ndero ed therein that his daughter Jogindero and his gran s grandson Harbans Singh rendered e was ndered services to him and he was pleased with with them and being happy from t d the from their services, he executed the present Will, t Will, which is his second Will and a more, and also the last Will. Furthermore, there is also s also a recital to the effect that ‘I ated ‘I hereby cancel the Will dated 31.03.1981, 81, which I had executed in favou ero, avour of my daughters Mohindero, Jitto, Chhind hindo, Jogindero and Bhajo with m and th my own free will and desire and that Will wo l would be inoperative. By cancellin 1, I elling the Will dated 31.03.1981, I have execut ecuted this new Will today in While in my complete senses.’ While bequeathing thing 2/3rd share in favour of his dau is daughter Jogindero and 1/3rd share share in the name o name of Harbans Singh, it was catego other categorically mentioned that no other person includ including my other daughters namely o and amely Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo and Bhajo shall b perty. shall be entitled to inherit his property. 17. The appellant has failed to pro ochan to prove that the testator Tarlochan Singh was n was not in his senses at the time dated e time of execution of Will dated 24.01.1984, , Ex.D2 and from a bare perusal ot be erusal of aforesaid Will, it cannot be purported th ted that a fraud was played upon fully upon the testator, as he was fully conscious of ous of the fact that he had executed a 1 and uted a Will earlier on 31.03.1981 and that the said e said Will would be rendered inope d the inoperative and thus, cancelled the same. 18. To prove the valid execution o esting tion of the Will, one of the attesting witness Har s Hardip Singh, Lambardar was who was examined as DW-7, who categorically rically stated that the testator Tarlocha osing rlochan Singh was in sound disposing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -11- mind and he nd he had produced a previous Will, w e day Will, which was cancelled on the day of execution cution of Will Ex.D2. He further st Will ther stated that contents of the Will Ex.D2 were were read over to the testator, who me as r, who, after admitting the same as correct, had , had thumb marked on the Will in h humb ill in his presence and he also thumb marked the the same in the presence of testat e also testator Tarlochan Singh. He also deposed that d that Ajit Singh was another witnes eared witness of the Will. They appeared before the T the Tehsildar, who also read over th to the over the contents of the Will to the testator Tarlo r Tarlochan Singh and after admitting humb itting its contents to be true, he thumb marked the s the same in his presence. He and A in the and Ajit also attested the Will in the presence of S of Sub Registrar. The scribe of the 6, of the Will was examined as DW-6, who stated t tated that the Will Ex.D2 was scrib ce of scribed by him at the instance of Tarlochan Si han Singh. The contents of the Will w after ill were read over to him and after admitting the the same to be correct, he thumb m d that umb marked on it. He also stated that Ajit Singh an ngh and Hardip Singh were attesting w dated sting witnesses. Thus, the Will dated 24.01.1984 E 984 Ex.D2 was duly proved in term ct of n terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Sec nd Section 68 of the Indian Evidence ence Act, 1872. 19. The exclusion of some of lega nd to f legal heirs cannot be a ground to discard the W the Will. The judgment relied up or the ed upon by learned counsel for the appellant in nt in the case of Leela and others n the rs (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the p f the present case. In the said case, erself case, propounder of the Will herself stated that h that her husband was not maintainin me of ntaining good health at the time of execution of ion of the Will and she had not active ion of t actively participated in execution of the Will but ll but the stamp papers were purchas the urchased in her name. Secondly, the stamp papers papers were purchased at Tenkashi wh ted at shi whereas the Will was executed at Madurai. Sh ai. She herself stated that her brother esting brother DW1, who was also attesting witness of th s of the Will, had brought the same to y her ame to her. It was also stated by her PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -12- that the Will e Will in question was given to her by dence her by DW2 in Tenkasi. The evidence of DW2 was 2 was that DW1 was not present at M stated at Madurai and DW1 herself stated that she was e was not aware that her husband w ill at and was going to execute a Will at Madurai. Fu ai. Furthermore, it was an unregistere ances, gistered Will. In these circumstances, the Will was ll was discarded; whereas in the prese duly present case, the Will has been duly proved in ter in terms of Section 63 of the Act o of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Eviden Evidence Act, 1872. 20. Fraud and misrepresentation are , who on are to be proved by the party, who pleads the sa the same but in the present case, no ht on se, no cogent evidence is brought on record to p to prove that the Will Ex.D2 and x.D2 was obtained by fraud and misrepresenta resentation. The contention of learne t that learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant ellant is still in possession has no rele
Decision
order elevance, as this Court vide order dated 24.11.1 24.11.1992, while issuing notice of m quo e of motion, also granted status quo regarding po ing possession till further orders and put in rs and since the plaintiff was put in possession in sion in lieu of earlier Will dated 31.03 have 31.03.1981, the possession may have continued in ed in terms of order dated 24.11.1992 .1992. 21. In view of the judgments passed Court passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajak ajakshi (Dead) through Legal Re Vs. l Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika a ka and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Pal 57, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and ot nd others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gu ugh Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gur Gurcharan Singh (dead) through ns of ugh LRs and others, questions of law are not r e not required to be framed in second b and second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana Hig a High Court whose jurisdiction is c ns of on is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. 22. As an upshot of above discussio gality cussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversi rversity in judgment and decree da y the ree dated 12.10.1992 passed by the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.235 351 of 1992 (O&M) -13- learned 1st Appellate Court and the same econd is upheld. The regular second appeal is dism dismissed. Order dated 24.11.1992 .1992 stands vacated. 23. Pending misc. application(s), if a (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ber 16, 2025 September 1 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes Yes PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh