JUDGEMENT
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. -
(1.)THIS is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order 07.01.2010, whereby his application for placing onus of issue No.2 on the contesting defendant/respondent No.1, was dismissed.
(2.)AS per the averments, petitioners along with proforma respondents filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction qua the suit property. In the suit, petitioners/plaintiffs were claiming their right to the property left by Smt.Kamlesh wd/o Rakha, who died on 14.06.2000, in their favour.
On the other hand, respondent No.1 had propounded a Will dated 01.03.2000 in his favour qua the suit property having been executed by Smt.Kamlesh(deceased). The trial Court vide its order dated 01.05.2006 framed a specific issue with regard to the validity of the Will being issue No.2 and placed the onus to prove the said issue on the plaintiffs. Issue No.2 reads as follows: Whether the Will dated 01.03.2000 bearing Vaskia No.534 registered with the office of Sub-Registrar,Panipat allegedly executed by Smt.Kamlesh wife of Rakha in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void, inoperative not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 2 to 4 and the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation?OPP
(3.)THE plaintiffs moved an application praying that the onus to prove the aforesaid issue be placed upon respondent No.1 on the ground that onus to prove the Will is always on the propounder of the Will. However, trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application vide impugned order. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the whole approach of the learned trial Court by passing the impugned order was illegal and perverse as it has failed to consider the well settled principles of law applicable thereto in its proper perspective.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.