Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
Malook Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Satnam Singh and others - Respondents
S.A.O. No. 19 of 2003.
Decided On : 12 July, 2006
Will - Property Dispute - Hindu Succession Act - [Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, Evidence Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the Evidence Act in relation to the production of the original will and additional evidence. The court emphasized the importance of due diligence in producing evidence and the necessity for the production of documents or witnesses for substantial cause. The judgment highlighted the failure to prove the will in accordance with the Evidence Act and the attempt to fill a gap in the case through the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The court concluded that the lower Appellate Court's order was not in line with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and set aside the judgment, remanding the case back for a decision on merit in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession of a property left by the deceased Hazara Singh, challenging the mutation of inheritance in favor of the defendants. The trial court held that the alleged will in favor of the defendants was not proved and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed against this judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower Appellate Court's order allowing additional evidence was not in line with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It emphasized the importance of due diligence in producing evidence and the necessity for the production of documents or witnesses for substantial cause. The court set aside the judgment and remanded the case back for a decision on merit in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues included ownership of shares, entitlement to joint possession, and the validity of the alleged will in favor of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of due diligence in producing evidence and the necessity for the production of documents or witnesses for substantial cause. It highlighted the failure to prove the will in accordance with the Evidence Act and the attempt to fill a gap in the case through the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the lower Appellate Court for a decision on merit in accordance with the law.
Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala dated 25.1.2003 allowing the defendant- appellant to lead evidence by producing certified copies of the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Samana and Collector, Patiala. Appellant/defendant was further allowed to lead additional evidence to prove the Will dated 31.11.1987 by permitting them to place on record the original registered Will dated 30.11.1987.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for joint possession claiming to be owner to the extent of 1/4 share of the property left with the deceased Hazara Singh and that defendant Nos. 3 and 10 were owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share each and the remaining 1/4th share was owned by defendant Nos. 4 to 9 in equal share being legal representatives of deceased Amar Singh out of the share of Hazura Singh of the land mentioned in the suit. Challenge was also made to the orders passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Samana dated 22.3.1996 and order of the Collector Patiala whereby mutation of inheritance of Hazura Singh was sanctioned in favour of the contesting defendant and the appellant before the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala. It was also pleaded by the complainant as under :-
"The parties are related to each other as following pedigree table :-
3. Hazura Singh brother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and 10 and uncle of defendant No 4 to 9 died on 2.7.1992 unmarried and issueless leaving behind the defendant No. 3 to 10 as legal heirs and representatives. The defendant No. 1 and 2 are sons of defendant Nos. 3. As per Hindu Succession Act after the death of Hazura Singh plaintiff defendant No. 3 and 10 and Amar Singhs legal heirs i.e. Defendant No. 4 to 9 were entitled to inherit/succeed Hazara Singh to extent to 1/4th share each to plaintiff, defendant No. 3 and 10 and 1/4th share to defendant No. 4 to 9 in equal share being legal heirs and representative of Amar Singh. The mutation of inheritance was got recorded by the defendant No. 1 and 2 in connivance with defendant No. 3 Balkar Singh on the basis of false and fabricated will allegedly executed by Hazura Singh deceased. The mutation was contested and was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Samana vide his order dated 22.3.1996 illegally in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the Collector Patiala also ordered for mutation in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which is illegal and arbitrary, and not binding upon the plaintiff and other defendant Nos. 3 to 10. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 10 requested the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 admit the claim but they flatly refused to do so. The defendant No. 3 being father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 connived with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with intention to grab the share of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 10 and further threatened to further alienate or transfer the land by way of exchange, sale, mortgage, gift etc. in favour of some other persons to which they have got no right, title or authority. Hence, this suit."
4. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 and 3. Besides taking preliminary objections on merit, it was submitted as under :-
"...... The Pedegree table is not correctly shown and is incomplete. One daughter of Balkar Singh has been ignored who is namely Rajwinder Kaur. It is wrong and denied that Hazura Singh executed a Registered Will in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated 28.11.1987 and on that basis of the said will the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The said mutation No. 902 was hotly contested by the plaintiff and after due contest it was sanctioned in favour of the replying defendant Nos. 1 and 2. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Collector Patiala, District Patiala and the said appeal was dismissed. The mutation was recorded on the basis of will validly exec
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
