Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 1612
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Garg, J.
Prem Kumari
Versus
Sat Pal
C.M. No. 3655 of 1996,
Regular Second Appeal No. 2225 of 1996,
Decided On : OCTOBER 17, 1996
A compromise arrived at between the parties in a suit does not revoke a will unless the intention of the parties at the time of compromise was to give effect to the will.
Headnote:
WILL - REVOCATION - COMPROMISE - EFFECT - WILL NOT REVOKED BY COMPROMISE - MINOR - COMPROMISE - BINDING ON MINOR - PERMISSION OF COURT NOT NECESSARY - WILL - EXECUTION - ONE DAY BEFORE DEATH - NOT SUSPICIOUS - REGISTRATION - DECREE - NOT REQUIRED - PROPERTY CLAIMED UNDER WILL - NOT UNDER COMPROMISE.
Fact of the Case:
Lal Devi, widow of Lal Shah, filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts in respect of the property in dispute and other properties against Diwan Chand, Dharam Pal, Sat Pal, Prem Kumari minor daughter of La Shah and others. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14.2.1959 by Shri Hukam Chand, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, vide which the will dated 10.7.1956 propounded by Sat Pal, Dharam Pal and Diwan Chand was held to have been duly executed by Lal Shah and, therefore, the plaintiff Lal Devi was held to have no locus standi to file the suit for partition and rendition of accounts. In that suit, Prem Kumari daughter of Lal Shah was sued through Mangni Lal a relation of the parties who himself was defendent No. 5 in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The will dated 10.7.1956 has been upheld by the two courts below, not only in these proceedings but also in the previous suit filed by Lal Devi. In terms the compromise arrived at between the parties, Lal Devi had been given a right to enjoy the property during her life time and thereafter her daughter Prem Kumari the appellant herein was allowed to enjoy the property for a period of 12 years after the death of Lal Devi. If the will bad not been accepted and the intention of the parties at the time of compromise was not to give effect to the will the compromise would have been eitirely in different terms i.e. Lal Devi and Prem Kumari may have been given some share in the property as absolute owners whereas in fact they were given only a limited right to enjoy the property for a certain period. Therefore, It cannot be accepted that because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the will executed by Lal Shah automatically stood revoked.
Issues: 1. Whether the will dated 10.7.1956 was duly executed by Lal Shah? 2. Whether the compromise arrived at between the parties in the Regular First Appeal filed by Lal Devi revoked the will? 3. Whether Prem Kumari, the appellant, was bound by the decree passed in the earlier appeal? 4. Whether the decree passed in the earlier appeal required registration? 5. Whether the will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The will dated 10.7.1956 has been upheld by the two courts below, not only in these proceedings but also in the previous suit filed by Lal Devi. 2. The compromise arrived at between the parties in the Regular First Appeal filed by Lal Devi did not revoke the will. 3. Prem Kumari, the appellant, was bound by the decree passed in the earlier appeal as she was a major at the time when the compromise was arrived at. 4. The decree passed in the earlier appeal did not require registration as the plaintiffs in this suit were claiming property not under the compromise but under the will executed by Lal Shah. 5. The will was not shrouded by suspicious circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine.
G.C.Garg, J.
1. Dispute in this appeal is to the estate of Lal Chand alias Lal Shah. Plaintiffs Sat Pal and Dharam Pal are sons of Diwan Chand and Diwan Chand, the third plaintiff is son of Lal Shah.
2. Lal Devi widow of Lal Shah filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts in respect of the property in dispute and other properties against Diwan Chand, Dharam Pal, Sat Pal, Prem Kumari minor daughter of La Shah and others. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14.2.1959 by Shri Hukam Chand, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, vide which the will dated 10.7.1956 propounded by Sat Pal, Dharam Pal and Diwan Chand was held to have been duly executed by Lal Shah and, therefore, the plaintiff Lal Devi was held to have no locus standi to file the suit for partition and rendition of accounts. In that suit, Prem Kumari daughter of Lal Shah was sued through Mangni Lal a relation of the parties who himself was defendent No. 5 in the suit.
3. Regular First Appeal at the instance of Lal Devi against the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1959 was compromised in this Court and in that compromise, Lal Devi was allowed to enjoy the property now in dispute during her life time. It was further agreed between the parties that Prem Kumari shall have a right to enjoy the property in question for a period of 12 years of the death of her mother Lal Devi. This compromise was arrived at on 21.2.1964 and the Regular First Appeal in terms of the said compromise. Lal Devi died on 27.11.1969 And thus in terms of the compromise, the plaintiffs of the present suit i.e. Sat Pal, Dharam Pal and Dewan Chand became entitled to possession of the property from Prem Kumar w.e.f. 27.11.1981. They consequently filed a suit for possession on 5.4.1982 out of which the present appeal has arisen:
4. Trial court by judgment and decree dated 2.11.1988 decreed the suit with proportionate costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 1 for possession of the building in dispute and for mesne profits as detailed in the decree. Prem Kumari, defendant filed appeal there against and Shri S.S. Arora, Addl. District Judge, Amritsar framed three additional issues arid by his order dated 10.5.1994 remanded the case to the trial court under order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for submitting a report on the additional issues. Shri U.S. Gera, Subordinate Judge Amritsar submitted his report dated 25.7.1995 after returning findings on the additional issues. Under issue No. 13-B he came to the conclusion that Lal Shah duly executed the will in favour of the present plaintiffs and the same was free from all suspicious circumstances. Under issue No. 13-C, he reported that Prem Kumari was not in possession of the suit property as an absolute owner by inheritance from her father Lal Shah as she had not been given right to sell the property in dispute. Under issue No. 13-D, he returned a finding that possession of defendant No. 1 was not adverse to the plaintiffs and had not matured into ownership. Learned Addl. District Judge after the receipt of the report from the trial court directed the appeal by his judgment and decree dated 16.7.1996 and affirmed the findings recorded by the trail court. This is how this appeal has been filed by Prem Kumari, defendent No. 1.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised five-fold submissions, namely, that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties in the Regular First Appeal filed by Lal Devi, the will stood revoked as Lal Devi and Prem Kumari had been given a right in the property of the deceased LSI Shah; Prem Kumari the appellant in this appeal was not the signatory to the compromise and, therefore, she is not bound by the decree passed in the earlier appeal; Diwan Chand was also given some property under the compromise and therefore, the decree passed in the earlier appeal required registration and in the absence thereof, the appellant cannot be held bound by it and it does not affect
