Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 574
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L. Singhal, J.
Pehalwan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Laddo Bibi - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 1547 of 1998.
Decided On : 22 May, 2001
For the Appellant :Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5:Mr. K.L. Dhawan, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to ascertain the true intention of the testator and the heavy onus on the proponent of the will to prove its genuineness, especially when excluding other heirs from inheritance.
Headnote:
Will - Inheritance Dispute - Ex.D1 - 14.6.1979 - [Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63] - The court discussed the validity and genuineness of the will Ex.D1 dated 14.6.1979 executed by Mehla Singh in favor of Pehalwan Singh, and its implications on the inheritance dispute. The court emphasized the duty to ascertain the true intention of the testator and the heavy onus on the proponent of the will to prove its genuineness, considering the exclusion of other heirs. The court also highlighted the lack of registration and reasons for exclusion as factors impacting the validity of the will.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of land following the death of Mehla Singh, with conflicting claims based on a will dated 14.6.1979 executed by Mehla Singh in favor of Pehalwan Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the will Ex.D1 dated 14.6.1979 was not genuinely and validly executed by Mehla Singh, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the inheritance of Mehla Singh.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the will, the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a share in the inheritance, and the limitation period for the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of genuineness and validity of the will Ex.D1 dated 14.6.1979, the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a share in the inheritance, and the suit being within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings and decreeing the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share in the inheritance of Mehla Singh.
M.L. Singhal, J. - One Mehla Singh was owner of land measuring 76 kanals situated in the area of village Mahantawala, and he was owner of 1/2 share of land measuring 16 kanals situated in the area of village Boor Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur as detailed in the heading of the plaint. He had 3 sons, Pehalwan Singh, Jit Singh and Sucha Singh. Mehla Singh died intestate leaving behind Pehalwan Singh, Jit Singh and Sucha Singh. After the death of Mehla Singh, his inheritance was mutated equally in the name of Pehalwan Singh, Jit Singh and Sucha Singh. Sucha Singh died. After the death of Sucha Singh, his 1/3rd share in the inheritance of Mehla Singh was mutated in the names of Pehalwan Singh and Jit Singh defendants. On these allegations, Smt. Laddo Bibi widow; minors Shanto Bibi, Swarnjit daughters; minors Harmit Singh and Gurdip Singh sons filed suit for declaration against Pehalwan Singh and Jit Singh sons of Mehla Singh to the effect that they, in equal share, are joint owners in joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share of land measuring 76 kanals and 1/6th share of land measuring 16 kanals as detailed in the heading of the plaint on the basis of natural succession being the wife and children of Mehla Singhs son Sucha Singh deceased.
2. Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 contested the suit of the plaintiffs. It was urged that he became owner of the suit land on the basis of will dated 14.6.1979 executed by said Mehla Singh. Mehla Singh died on 27.8.1979. Since then, he is in possession. His possession is open, hostile, uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. He has thus become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Suit was barred by time. After the death of Mehla Singh, mutation was entered and sanctioned in his name on the basis of will Ex.D1 dated 14.6.1979 executed by Mehla Singh in his favour. It was a valid and genuine will executed by Mehla Singh. Jit Singh and Sucha Singh were present in mutation proceedings. They did not raise any objection when mutation on the basis of said will was sanctioned in favour of Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1. Sucha Singh and Jit Singh gave their consent to the sanction of mutation in favour of Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 while admitting the will to be genuine, valid and binding between the parties. Jit Singh defendant No. 2 also contested the suit. Jit Singh filed written statement. He admitted the will dated 14.6.1979 to have been validly and genuinely executed in favour of Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1. He stated that mutation was correctly entered and sanctioned in favour of Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 by the revenue authorities who gave effect to the will dated 14.6.1979 which had been validly and genuinely executed by his father Mehla Singh. He and Sucha Singh were present in mutation proceedings. They did not raise any objection when mutation was sanctioned in favour of Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 to their exclusion on the basis of will dated 14.6.1979. Possession of Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 is open, hostile, uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs since 27.8.1979. Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Plaintiffs suit is barred by time. On these pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD
4. Relief.
3. Vide order dated 26.10.1994, plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs by Subordinate Judge Second Class, Ferozepur in view of his finding that Mehla Singh did not execute any valid and genuine will in favour of Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 as set up by Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1 and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in the inheritance of Mehla Singh. Plaintiffs suit was found to be within time. Plaintiffs suit was found to be maintainable.
4. Pehalwan Singh, defendant No. 1
