Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 1936
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.C.Puri, J.
Satnam Singh
Versus
Rajwant Kaur @ Rajjo
Regular Second Appeal No. 441 of 2009,
Decided On : JULY 5, 2010
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution of a Will and the significance of suspicious circumstances surrounding the document under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - 1. Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63, Section 68, Section 69, Section 74 - The court discussed the execution of the Will dated 7.1.1977 and its validity under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court highlighted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and the failure of the appellants to prove its execution. The court emphasized the technical nature of the wording used in the Will and the absence of evidence supporting the appellants' claims. The court concluded that the Will was a suspicious document and its execution was not proved.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land, alleging that the defendants' claim based on a Will dated 7.1.1977 was illegal and fabricated. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was upheld in the first appeal and the second appeal was filed by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendants failed to prove the execution of the Will and the suit was within limitation. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Will was a suspicious document surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Issues: The issues included the inheritance of the estate, limitation of the suit, estoppel, validity of the Will, and entitlement to possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the defendants to prove the execution of the Will and the suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The court also emphasized the technical nature of the wording used in the Will and the absence of supporting evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions in favor of the plaintiff.
K.C.Puri, J.
1. This is Second Regular Appeal preferred by defendant appellants against the judgment dated 6.9.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the appeal preferred by the present appellants against the judgment dated 20.12.1999 passed by Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, was dismissed.
2. Briefly the case of the plaintiff set forth in the plaint is that suit land originally belong to Kehar Singh son of Jamiat Singh who had died about few years earlier to the filing of the suit leaving behind his sons. Beant Singh and Jaswant Singh (now deceased) had inherited the share of the estate of said Kehar Singh in equal shares. Satnam Singh and Kulwant Singh, grandsons of Kehar Singh were not having any right or interest in the suit property. Said defendants were alleging execution of Will in their favour by Kehar Singh deceased which was impugned to be illegal, null and void document being result of forgery and fabricated. Mutation done, if any, on the basis of said Will was also alleged to be illegal, null and void. The defendants were requested many a times to admit the claim of the plaintiff, but their adamant refusal had left the plaintiff with no other alternative, but to file the suit.
3. Suit was contested by the defendants in two sets. Defendant No.l filed separate written statement taking up the preliminary objections that the plaintiff had got no right or interest in the suit property and also that she was estopped by her act and conduct to file the suit against the defendants. The plaintiff and her father knew about the execution of valid Will dated 7.1.1977 duly executed by Kehar Singh, while he was having sound and disposing mind. Accordingly, mutation No. 2600 in respect of the suit property was sanctioned in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the presence of defendant No. 1 and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa Singh, who admitted the correctness of the Will dated 7.1.1977 before the Revenue Authorities at the time of sanctioning of the said mutation. Said Jaswant Singh @ Jassa Singh died in August, 1995 and till his death, he had never challenged said mutation No. 2600 regarding the estate of deceased Kehar Singh. It was also objected that the suit was time barred. On merits, the relationship between the parties was admitted, but the death as alleged by the plaintiff was denied and it was specifically asserted that said Kehar Singh had died in August, 1977, leaving behind his two sons. It was positively asserted that Will dated 7.1.1977 executed by said Kehar Singh was legal and valid through which he had bequeathed his property to defendants No. 2 and 3 in equal shares. The plaintiff was frequently meeting the defendants and she was having full knowledge of the Will dated 7.1.1977 and also of the sanctioning of mutation No. 2600. Defendants No. 2 and 3 got admitted Darshan Kaur mother of the plaintiff, in Lal Hospital, Amritsar for her treatment and had spent about Rs.30,000/- on her illness. Said Darshan Kaur died in the year 1993 and her last rites were performed by defendants No. 2 and 3 and they also performed the last rites of Jaswant Singh, father of the plaintiff. All other allegations made in the plaint were denied.
4. Defendants No. 2 and 3 had filed separate written statement but had taken almost similar stand as was taken up by defendant No.l in his separate written statement. It was also prayed by defendants No. 2 and 3 that the suit be dismissed.
5. Replications were filed separately for each written statement controverting the allegtions made in the written statements and reiterating those made in the plaint.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the estate of Kehar Singh was inherited by defendant No. 1 and Jaswant Singh deceased? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is e
