Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Bachan Singh And Anr.
Versus
Bakshish Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 451 of 1985,
Decided On : MARCH 2, 2000
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, Evidence Act - Section 59, Section 63, Section 67, Section 68 - The court discussed the requirements and nature of proof for the execution of a will, the need to prove the testator's sound and disposing state of mind, and the significance of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. The court emphasized the importance of dispelling suspicious circumstances and satisfying the conscience of the court in cases of wills. The court also highlighted the need for the propounder to prove the testator's free will and mind, especially in cases where the propounder has received substantial benefits under the will.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute over the ownership of land based on a will executed by the deceased. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a will dated 29.12.1978, while the defendants contested the validity of the will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the will set up by the plaintiff was not proved to be the last will of the testator due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, including the use of an attesting witness's thumb impression instead of the testator's.
Issues: The main issue was whether the will executed by the deceased in favor of the plaintiff was valid. Other issues included the ownership of the suit land and the refusal to sanction mutation based on the alleged will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove the testator's sound and disposing state of mind, dispel suspicious circumstances, and satisfy the conscience of the court in cases of wills. The court also highlighted the significance of the propounder proving the testator's free will and mind, especially in cases where the propounder has received substantial benefits under the will.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, and restored the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. For a better understanding of the case, the following pedigree table is given :-
Jawala | ---------------------------------------------------- | | | Mela Keli Gandu | | Kashmir Singh Rattan Singh Garib Singh (deceased) & Kishan SIngh ------------------------------------- | | | Bachan Darshan Bakshish Singh Singh Singh
2 Rattan Singh was owner in possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 94 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Jalalpura as detailed in the heading of the plaint. Rest 1/2 share of land measuring 94 kanals 7 marlas was owned by Bakshshish Singh and his two brothers Darshan Singh and Bachan Singh. Bakhshish Singh instituted suit for declaration against Darshan Singh and Bachan Singh etc. defendants to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 94 kanals 7 marlas pertaining to Rattan Singh on account of will dated 29.12.1978 executed by him in his favour to the exclusion of Darshan Singh and Bachan Singh etc. defendants. It was alleged in the plaint that Rattan Singh was bachelor. He was putting up with him (Bakshish Singh) jointly. He (Bakshish Singh) was looking after him and serving him. He was joint in mess and cultivation with Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh had love and affection being rendered by him to him. He, therefore, constituted him as his sole heir by will dated 29.12.1978 thereby bequeathing his entire property movable and immovable to him. So far as other brothers of Bakshish Singh i.e. Bachan Singh and Darshan Singh are concerned, they are residing in U.P. They were not in a position to look after and serve Rattan Singh. Similarly, Bakshish Singhs sisters were putting up with their in-laws and were not in a position to look after and serve Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh died in September 1979. His last rites were performed by him (Bakhshish Singh). Mutation No. 943 was entered by the patwari in his favour on the basis of that will. That Mutation was rejected by SDO (Civil) exercising the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amritsar unjustly thereby ignoring the will, Darshan Singh etc. had no right, interest or title in the inheritance of Rattan Singh and as such he asked for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession.
3. Darshan Singh, Garib Singh and Smt. Bachni defendants filed written statement admitting the will and consequentially the claim of the plaintiff as laid in the plaint. Bachan Singh, Smt. Charni, Kishan Singh and Bissi defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that Rattan Singh never executed any will in favour of the plaintiff. Will set up by him is false and forged. It was denied that Rattan Singh was residing with the plaintiff jointly or that they had a joint mess. Rattan Singh was residing all alone and he was being served by the defendants. Rattan Singh had love and affection for the defendants. Defendants 4 and 5 i.e. Garib Singh and Kishan Singh have their residence in village Jalalpura. It was denied that last rites of Ratan Singh were performed by the plaintiff. In fact, his last rites were performed by the defendants. Will was rightly adjudged to be false and forged by AC 1st Grade. Ajnala who rejected the mutation. Rattan Singh was first cousin of Bakshshish Singh, Darshan Singh, Bachan Singh, Garib Singh and Kishan Singh and as such there was no occasion for him to have preferred Bakshish Singh and exclude all others equally related to him.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land ? OPP
2. Whether Rattan Singh executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiff on 29.12.1978? OPP
3. Whether the order of SDO (C) refusing to sanction the mutation on the basis of alleged will in favour of the plaintiff if illegal, null, void and without jurisdiction ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP
5. Whether the suit is properly valued fo
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
