SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Smt. Usha Devi - Appellant
Vs.
Joginder Singh and others - Respondents
RSA No. 2253, 2254 of 2004, RSA No. 615, 3695 of 2007
Decided On : 27-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Vikas Behl, Ms. Japneet Kaur
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Mr. Som Nath Saini, Mr. Vijay Lath

Headnote:

The Court was tasked with determining the validity of two wills and the subsequent devolution of property in three suits and one appeal. The Court held that the wills were not valid and that the property should devolve according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Fact of the Case:

1. Shakuntla Devi, the owner of suit land in villages Sooni and Bakhlaur, executed two wills, one in 1992 in favor of her cousins' sons and one in 1995 in favor of her cousin and a religious institution. 2. After Shakuntla Devi's death, her husband, Joginder Singh, filed suit No. 25 of 1996 seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the suit land and that the mutations based on the wills were null and void. 3. The cousins' sons filed suit No. 208 of 1999 seeking a declaration that they were the owners of the suit land based on the 1992 will. 4. Joginder Singh also filed suit No. 131 of 2003 seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the suit land in village Bakhlaur. 5. Dildar Singh and Niranjan Singh filed suit No. 529 of 1997 seeking a permanent injunction against Baba Kali Dass, the religious institution named in the 1995 will, from interfering with their possession of the suit land in village Bakhlaur.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Court held that the wills were not valid due to suspicious circumstances, including the state of mind of the testatrix, who was in the final stages of cancer, and the fact that the only attesting witness who testified in Court was held to be an interested witness. 2. The Court held that the property should devolve according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the case of the property in village Sooni, which Shakuntla Devi inherited from her father, the Court held that it would devolve upon her father's heirs. In the case of the property in village Bakhlaur, which Shakuntla Devi acquired from her husband's uncle, the Court held that it would devolve upon her husband. 3. The Court dismissed all four appeals.

Issues: 1. Whether the two wills executed by Shakuntla Devi were valid. 2. How the property should devolve in light of the invalidity of the wills.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the wills were not valid due to suspicious circumstances, including the state of mind of the testatrix, who was in the final stages of cancer, and the fact that the only attesting witness who testified in Court was held to be an interested witness. 2. The Court held that the property should devolve according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the case of the property in village Sooni, which Shakuntla Devi inherited from her father, the Court held that it would devolve upon her father's heirs. In the case of the property in village Bakhlaur, which Shakuntla Devi acquired from her husband's uncle, the Court held that it would devolve upon her husband.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed all four appeals.

JUDGMENT :

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

These four appeals arise out of four suits filed by five persons who are parties to the lis. Two of the suits pertain to land falling in village Bakhlaur, then Tehsil Nawanshahar, formerly District Hoshiarpur (now District Nawanshahar), whereas two suits pertain to land falling in village Sooni, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The owner of the suit land, in all the suits, was stated to be one Shakuntla Devi, essentially whose wills stand to question in 3 of the 4 suits. In one suit, pertaining to land in village Bakhlaur, only a decree of permanent injunction was sought, though even in that case, the defendant did rely upon a will of Shakuntla Devi.

Civil suit No.25 was filed by Joginder Singh, husband of Shakuntla Devi, arraying as defendants therein one Usha Devi, her brother Baljit Singh, as also his minor sons Joga Singh and Deepak Kumar. Usha Devi and Baljit Singh are stated to be first cousins (paternal uncles' children) of Shakuntla Devi. The plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that he is the co-owner in joint possession of 24 kanals and 8 marlas of land, out of a holding of 97 kanals and 14 marlas, fully described in the plaint. He further sought a declaration that mutation no.1462 sanctioned in the name of the defendants, on the basis of an 'alleged will' dated 19.06.1995, stated to have been executed by his wife, Shakuntla Devi, in favour of the first defendant, i.e. Usha Devi, as also mutation no.1462 entered in the revenue record on the basis of an 'alleged will' dated 15.07.1992, again allegedly executed by Shakuntla Devi, in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants, i.e. the minor sons of Baljit Singh (plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.208), be corrected in the revenue record, by entering a mutation in his (plaintiff Joginder Singhs') favour. He further sought a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit land, and from alienating it in any manner. Alternatively, he simply prayed for a decree of joint possession.

Civil Suit No.208 was filed by the aforesaid Joga Singh and Deepak Kumar, minor sons of Baljit Singh, arraying therein as defendants their aunt Usha Devi, as also the aforesaid Joginder Singh, plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 25, husband of the late Shakuntla Devi. The plaintiffs in this suit also sought a decree of declaration, to the effect that they are owners/co-sharers in joint possession of the same land, measuring 24 kanals and 8 marlas, on the basis of a will registered on 15.07.1992, executed by the late Shakuntla Devi in their favour.

The suit by the minors was filed through their mother, also named Shakuntla Devi, (wife of the aforesaid Baljit Singh-defendant no.2 in Civil Suit No.25).

Civil Suit No. 25 dated 27.01.1996 and Civil Suit No. 208 dated 06.08.1999, both pertaining to land falling in village Sooni, were consolidated by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garshankar, with evidence stated to be led in Civil Suit No.25. Both these suits were decided by a common judgment on 11.12.2001.

2. Both suits were dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge vide her judgment and decree dated 11.12.2001, against which four appeals were preferred before the first appellate Court (of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur). Two appeals were filed by Usha Devi, who, being a defendant in both the civil suits, would seem to have no reason to file any appeal with the civil suits dismissed, but her appeals were so filed, on account of the finding by the trial Court that no declaration could be issued in favour of the defendants, i.e. Usha Devi and her brother Baljit Singh, to the effect that they are the legal representatives of the father of the late Shakuntla Devi (and consequently entitled to inherit the suit land). Similarly, Joga Singh and Deepak Kumar also filed two appeals





















































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top