A local Court on Monday issued notices to the eldest daughter of Late Maharaja Harinder Singh Brar based on a petition filed by the younger daughter Maharani Deepinder Kaur. Also,the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge R K Yadav summoned the record of the trial court which had declared the will of Maharaja Brar as forged.
The Court,after hearing arguments of both parties,listed the case for arguments. The case will come up for resumed hearing on August 22.
Last week,adding twist to the ongoing dispute between the two sisters on the will of their father,the younger daughter Maharani Deepinder Kaur claimed that a will prepared by the Maharaja in 1952 debarred her elder sister Amrit Kaur from the properties.
Another appeal was filed by the Meharwal Khewaji Trust against the a lower court order dated July 25. In the said order,the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajnish Kumar Sharma adjudged that the will of the Maharaja,who died in 1989,was forged. The Court had ruled that his assets,managed by Meharwal Khewaji Trust,should be inherited by his two surviving heirs,Amrit Kaur and Deepinder Kaur,77.
Ruling in favour of Amrit Kaur,CJM said that the will had been forged to award the former rulers holdings to the trust,managed by one of his three daughters (Deepinder Kaur),his servants and lawyers. The will,prepared in 1982,came to light after the Maharajas death in 1989.
It is this order against which Deepinder Kaur and the Trust have moved the Sessions court on Monday. Interestingly,Kaur claimed that other than the 1989 will,there was an original will prepared by the Maharaja in 1952. In the said will,the Maharaja had debarred Amrit Kaur from all the properties.
This new will has been necessitated by the fact that I do not want to leave any property now as it will be in favour of my daughter Rajkumari Amrit Kaur Sahiba,reads the will.
Kaur,along with the Trust in a joint petition,claimed that her elder sister,Amrit Kaur,relied on the 1952 will. Kaur contended that the trial Court on illegal grounds has set aside the will.
Senior lawyer Chetan Mittal appearing on behalf of Kaur argued that the judgment (July 25) and decree cannot sustain on account of the admitted will.
The Trust and Kaur challenged the findings of the trial court by alleging that the trial court has misread the evidence and various documents on record.