Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Saron, J.
Krishana
Versus
Raj Kumari
Regular Second Appeal No. 959 of 2001,
C.M. No. 4711 of 2002,
Cross Objection No. 17 of 2001,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 21, 2005
Will - Inheritance Dispute - Hindu Succession Act - [Will, Inheritance Dispute, Hindu Succession Act] - The court discussed the validity and interpretation of the Will executed by the deceased, emphasizing the intention of the testator to transfer his entire estate to the plaintiffs. The court applied the principles of Will interpretation, as established by the Supreme Court, to ascertain the testator's intention and concluded that the entire property was willed to the plaintiffs. The court also addressed the departmental dues of the deceased and upheld the plaintiffs' claim as beneficiaries under the Will.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the estate of the deceased Atam Parkash, with conflicting claims from the widow and daughter of the deceased and the alleged widow and daughter. The plaintiffs sought declaration as the only legal heirs and exclusive owners of the estate, based on a registered Will executed by the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will executed by the deceased was valid and willed his entire property to the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the properties specifically mentioned in the Will, while other properties and retirement benefits were to be distributed among all legal heirs in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Will, the maintainability of the suit, and the proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of Will interpretation to ascertain the testator's intention, emphasizing the need to read the Will as a whole and consider surrounding circumstances. The court concluded that the testator intended to transfer his entire property to the plaintiffs, excluding the defendants from inheritance.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in its entirety, and the cross objections filed by the defendants were dismissed. The judgment and decree under appeal were modified accordingly.
S.S.Saron, J.
1. This order will dispose of R.S.A. 959 of 2001 filed by Smt Krishana and Payal, widow and daughter respectively of late Atam Parkash as also the cross-objections No. 17-C of 2001 filed by Smt Raj Kumari and Smt Nishu, also the widow and daughter respectively of said Atam Parkash.
2. The dispute in the case is with respect to the estate of Atam Parkash (deceased) who died on 25.2.1988. It is not disputed that during his life time, Atam Parkash executed a registered Will dated 9.4.1982 (Ex P4). The case of the plaintiffs - Smt Krishna and Ms Payal is that they are the widow and daughter respectively of aforesaid deceased Atam Parkash. The suit was filed by them for declaration to the effect that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased and are entitled to inherit his estate (moveable and immoveable) and that the defendants had nothing to do with the estate of the deceased. It was alleged that Smt Shanti Devi (defendant No. 1) is the mother of the deceased and Smt Raj Kumari (defendant No. 2) and Smt Nishu (defendant No. 3) are the alleged widow and daughter respectively of deceased Atam Parkash. It is further stated that Atam Parkash was the owner in possession of two houses i.e. House No.6-A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat, and another house No. 61, 4 Marlas, Sonepat. The second house was sold by deceased Atam Parkash during his life time and at the time of his demise, he was in possession of House No. 6-A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat along with the plaintiffs who used to reside with them. The possession of the said house, it was stated, since the date of marriage of Smt Krishna (plaintiff No. 1) with Atam Parkash, was that of plaintiff No. 1 and Atam Parkash and since the birth of Ms Payal (plaintiff No. 2), she has also been residing in the said house. After the demise of Atam Parkash -husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2, they were in possession of the same. It is further stated that Smt Krishna was married with Atam Parkash deceased on 16.6.1970 at Arya Samaj, Anar Kali Mandir Marg, New Delhi as per Hindu rites. It is since 16.6.1990 that plaintiff No. 1 had been residing with Atam Parkash and had been discharging her duties as his wife. Plaintiff No. 2 was born on 13.10.1972 and has been residing with her parents since then. It is further stated that Atam Parkash executed a legal and valid Will dated 9.4.1982 in sound and disposing mind bequeathing all his properties in favour of the plaintiff. The said Will, it is sated, is the outcome of sound and disposing mind of Atam Parkash who was in full knowledge that he was a patient of high blood pressure and, therefore, executed his Will so as to avoid any complications after his death. The deceased clearly mentioned in the Will that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were residing separately for the last more than 12 years at the time of execution of the said Will and that they were sufficiently compensated by him and that they were not entitled to inherit any property (moveable and immoveable) left by him (Atam Parkash) after his death.
3. Besides, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were otherwise estopped by their own acts and conduct to claim the estate left by Atam Parkash. It is also stated that defendant No. 2 had executed an affidavit dated 6.5.1992 (sic 1982) duly attested by Notary Public in this regard. It is further stated that defendant No. 1 was being properly looked after by Atam Parkash and the plaintiffs and during the life time of Ram Baksh (father of Atam Parkash), he had given enough money to defendant No. 1 and she had enough means to support herself. It is also stated that in the said property, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and also in possession of House No. 6-A, Khanna Colony. Sonepat i.e. the estate left by Atam Parkash. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, it is stated were well aware that the plaintiffs were the sole owners of the estate left by Atam Parkash and after his death, they did not move any department or any authority for inheritance
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
