SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 371

NAVIN SINHA, KRISHNA MURARI
JAGMAIL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
KARAMJIT SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Anand Padmanabha, Shashi Bhushan Kumar Advocates
For the Respondent:Gaurav Advocate

JUDGMENT

Krishna Murari, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 7271 of 2015 whereby the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moga in application filed under Section 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act by the appellants herein seeking permission to prove the copy of the Will dated 24.01.1989 executed by one Babu Singh in their favour by way of secondary evidence, as the original Will which was handed over to the village patwari for mutation could not be retrieved. The High Court while dismissing the application observed that as the pre-requisite condition of existence of Will is not proved, the Will cannot be permitted to be approved by allowing the secondary evidence.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants preferred a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners to the extent of 1/2 share each of the land owned by Babu Singh son of Phuman Singh, situated in village Kokri Kalan, Tehsil & District Moga and Mutation No. 9971 dated 28.02.1991 and Mutation No. 9359 dated 25.02.1991 sanctioned by the Assistan


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top