Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4331
Delhi High Court
Manmohan Singh, J.
Jagmohan Singh Kochhar - Appellant
Versus
Satwant Singh Kochhar - Resopndent
CS (OS) No. 455/2000
Decided On : 15-10-2015
For the Plaintiff :Mr.B.P.Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Defendant :Mr.P.S.Bindra, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the genuineness of a Will in a succession case, as per the provisions of the Succession Act, 1925 and the Evidence Act, 1872.
Headnote:
Will - Partition of Property - Succession Act, 1925, Evidence Act, 1872 - The court discussed the genuineness of two Wills dated 15th November, 1992 and 26th September, 1987. The plaintiff claimed one-half share in the property based on the alleged Will of Gurmukh Singh. The defendant relied on the Will dated 26th September, 1987, which was proved in another suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged Will, while the defendant was able to prove the genuineness of the Will dated 26th September, 1987. Consequently, the suit for partition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming one-half share in the property based on the alleged Will of Gurmukh Singh. The defendant contested the suit, asserting that the property was inherited by him through the Will dated 26th September, 1987.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged Will dated 15th November, 1992, while the defendant was able to prove the genuineness of the Will dated 26th September, 1987. Consequently, the suit for partition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues framed were: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the property, (2) Which of the Wills of late Gurmukh Singh dated 15th November, 1992 and 26th September, 1987 is genuine, (3) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee and appropriate court fee has been paid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of the Will in a succession case. It highlighted the requirements under the Succession Act, 1925 and the Evidence Act, 1872 for proving a Will. The court also noted the failure of the plaintiff to take necessary steps to challenge the Will relied upon by the defendant.
Final Decision: The suit for partition was dismissed, and the defendant's claim based on the Will dated 26th September, 1987 was upheld.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The present suit for partition in respect of ground floor portion of property No. 126, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) has been filed by the plaintiff claiming one-half share in the property on the basis of (purported) Will dated 15th November, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Alleged Will”).
2. Plaintiff’s Case as per Plaint:
(i) The suit property was owned jointly by late Gurmukh Singh and Smt. Lachhmi Devi. They both were the joint owners of the suit property in equal shares. The suit property was partitioned and ground floor portion of the suit property belonged to late Gurmukh Singh and first floor portion of the suit property belonged to late Smt. Lachhmi Devi. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Jaswant Singh Kochhar and the father of the defendant, namely, Darshan Singh Kochhar were the real uncle of late Gurmukh Singh.
(ii) Late Gurmukh Singh was a bachelor, therefore, he was residing either with Jaswant Singh Kochhar or Darshan Singh Kochhar. Gurmukh Singh had great love and affection for both of them.
(iii) After the death of Jaswant Singh Kochhar, late Gurmukh Singh started living with Darshan Singh Kochhar.
(iv) The suit property was earlier under the tenancy of various tenants. After the same was vacated Darshan Singh Kochhar and Gurmukh Singh had started residing in the suit property. Darshan Singh Kochhar, the father of the defendant died on 10th November, 1993.
(v) Gurmukh Singh expired on 17th February, 1993 in Delhi. Gurmukh Singh during his lifetime had executed a Will dated 15th November, 1992 wherein he had bequeathed his movable and immovable assets. According to his said Will Gurmukh Singh had given suit property i.e. his half portion of suit property to the plaintiff and defendant in equal share. The deceased Gurmukh Singh had also various other movable assets possessed by him in the form of securities etc. The remaining assets had been given to Balbir Kaur, wife of the defendant as per the Will of the deceased Gurmukh Singh.
(vi) As per the Will dated 15th November, 1992 executed by late Gurmukh Singh, the ground floor portion of the suit property was to be divided between the plaintiff and Darshan Singh Kochhar in equal shares.
(vii) After the death of Darshan Singh Kochhar, his son, the defendant is the heir to inherit the share of late Darshan Singh Kochhar in the suit property.
(viii) The plaintiff had requested the defendant many times to divide the suit property by metes and bounds and to hand over the portion belonging to the plaintiff in terms of the Will of Gurmukh Singh. The defendant had never opposed to the plaintiff’s request, but had always avoided the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff and the defendant are the joint owners of the share held by late Gurmukh Singh in terms of the Will left by late Gurmukh Singh. The defendant is residing in the ground floor portion of the suit property which belonged to late Gurmukh Singh and depriving the plaintiff of his right in the suit property in terms of the Will of the deceased.
(ix) The plaintiff is entitled to half share of late Gurmukh Singh in the suit property. As the defendant is not taking any steps to divide the shares of the parties in the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff has no alternative except to file the present suit.
3. Case of the Defendant as per Written Statement
(a) The suit property was the joint property of late Gurmukh Singh and late Laxmi Devi. Suit No. 38 of 1974 was filed by late Gurmukh Singh against Laxmi Devi in this Court for the partition of the suit property. The same was contested by Gurmukh Singh through his Attorney, the present defendant.
(b) The suit property was partitioned between the two owners in Suit No. 38 of 1974 entitled as Sardar Gurmukh Singh v. Laxmi Devi by this Court. During the pendency of this suit, he died with the result that plaintiff in the said suit came to be represented by his legal heirs and representa
