Back
2003 Supreme(P&H) 519
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Kesar Bai (Deceased By L.R.)
Versus
Ran Singh
Second Appeal No. 353 of 1998,
Decided On : APRIL 9, 2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution of a Will and the application of the doctrine of blending under Hindu Law in determining the ancestral status of property.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - - [Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63] - The court discussed the validity of the Will dated 18-12-1984 alleged to have been executed by Mauji Ram in favor of the plaintiff. The court also analyzed the nature of the land in dispute and its ancestral status, considering the inheritance from a collateral. The key legal provisions discussed were the requirements for proving the execution of a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the doctrine of blending under Hindu Law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration, claiming ownership of 15 Bighas of land based on a Will alleged to have been executed by his father. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court held the alleged Will as forged and upheld the mutation of the land in favor of legal heirs. The first appellate Court, however, upheld the Will and declared the land as non-ancestral, allowing the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: Validity of the Will, nature of the disputed land, and its ancestral status were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the alleged Will to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances and not duly proved. It also held that the entire property in the hand of Mauji Ram should have been treated as ancestral property based on the doctrine of blending.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court were set aside, restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
1. The defendants have filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge. Rohtak, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was allowed and suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mauji Ram was owning 30 Bighas of land. He was having three sons and two daughters. On 9-1-1985, he expired. On 22-2-1985, the mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of all his three sons and two daughters in equal share on the basis of natural succession. Subsequently, one of his sons, namely Ran Singh (plaintiff-respondent), contested the aforesaid mutation in the Revenue Court. He set up a Will dated 18-12-1984 alleged to have been executed by the aforesaid Mauji Ram bequeathing 15 Bighas of land out of the aforesaid 30 Bighas in his favour in lieu of the services rendered by him; and the remaining 15 Bighas were given to his other two sons. The said Will was unregistered. The Revenue Court did not find the said Will as a genuine document and held the same to be a forged one. Therefore, vide order dated 15-9-1987, passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, the sanctioning of aforesaid mutation in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Mauji Ram was confirmed and the aforesaid Will was rejected.
3. After failing in the revenue Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for permanent injunction and declaration on 14-10-1987 by alleging therein that 20 years ago, his father gave him 15 Bighas of the agricultural land in a family settlement. The Girdawari of the said land was sanctioned in his name. Thereupon, he became owner in possession of the said 15 Bighas of land. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendants were raising objections to the aforesaid land given to him in the family settlement. Ultimately, while confirming the said family settlement, his father executed a Will dated 18-12-1984 in his favour by giving him 15 Bighas of land under the said Will. But the said Will was illegally not recognised by the revenue authorities and the mutation of the land owned by his father was wrongly sanctioned in favour of all of his legal heirs in equal shares and the said mutation is wholly illegal, null and void and the same is not binding upon his rights. It was further alleged that under the guise of the aforesaid mutation, the defendants, who are the remaining sons, daughter and son of a deceased daughter of Mauji Ram, are trying to dispossess the plaintiff-respondent from 15 Bighas of land which was given to him by his father, which necessitated him to file the present suit. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 15 Bighas of land mentioned in the plaint and the defendants are having no right, title or interest in the same and the mutation dated 22-2-1985 sanctioned in their favour qua the aforesaid 15 Bighas of land is illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights.
4. The defendants filed two separate sets of written statement. One set of written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and another was filed by defendants Nos. 4 and 5. All the defendants contested the suit on similar grounds. It was alleged that the property in the hands of Mauji Ram was ancestral property. He never entered into any family settlement with the plaintiff by giving 15 Bighas of land to him. He also did not execute any Will in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged Will dated 18-12-1984 was a forged document and was got prepared by the plaintiff after the death of Mauji Ram. The mutation of inheritance of the land owned by Mauji Ram was sanctioned in favour of all his legal heirs i.e. three sons and two daughters in equal shares according to natural succession by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The aforesaid mutation was challenged by the plaintiff before the revenue Court on the
