Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
Kuldip Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Kuldip Kaur and others - Respondents
RSA No.3762 of 2006 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-11-2018
WILL - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68, 69, 47 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically Section 68, 69, and 47, and their application in proving the validity of a Will. The court emphasized the requirement to prove a Will by calling an attesting witness or through an alternate method when no attesting witness can be found. The court also highlighted the relevance of the opinion of a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person who wrote or signed the document. The judgment revolved around the legal principles of proving a Will and the weight given to the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming ownership of a share in the suit land and seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the land. The plaintiff alleged that the mutation of the suit land in favor of the defendants was based on a forged and fabricated Will. The defendants claimed that the mutation was sanctioned in their favor based on a valid Will executed by the plaintiff's father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant was able to prove the Will in accordance with the law. The court held that the plaintiff and other defendants were aware of the Will and had accepted its authenticity. The court also noted that the mutation in favor of the defendant was given effect to in the record of rights, and the plaintiff or the other defendants never objected to it during the lifetime of the defendant. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of a share in the property, the validity of the Will, the time-barred nature of the suit, estoppel, ancestral property status, and the maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the defendant's ability to prove the Will in accordance with the law, the acceptance of the Will's authenticity by the plaintiff and other defendants, and the lack of objection to the mutation during the defendant's lifetime.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of both the lower courts, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
1. The appellant is defendant No.1 in the plaint filed by respondent No.1. She has filed the present appeal impugning the judgments of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.
2. For facility of reference the parties will be referred to as per their status in the plaint.
3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the owner of 1/5th share in the suit land and for restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from alienating the suit land in any manner to any person. Mesne profits were also claimed from the date of filing the suit till delivery of possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff is the daughter of Sultan Singh. Defendant No.1 is the daughter- in- law of Sultan Singh being the widow of his son, Hardial Singh. Defendant No.2 is the widow of Sultan Singh. Defendants No.3, 4 and 5 are the daughters of Sultan Singh. The pedigree table is as under:-
Jhanda Singh
Sultan Singh
Ms.Mohinder Kaur wd/o Sultan Singh (Defendant No.2)
Amarjit Kaur d/o Sultan Singh (defendant No. 3)
Kuldip Kaur d/o Sultan Singh (Plaintiff)
Kuljit Kaur d/o Sultan Singh (defendant No. 4)
Jasbir Kaur d/o Sultan Singh (defendant No. 5)
Hardial Singh s/o Sultan Singh (died on 20.2.94) and has left behind his widow Mrs. Kuldip Kaur, defendant No.1 .
5. It was pleaded that Sultan Singh was the owner of considerable land in village Kalhiana including the suit land. During his life time, he effected an oral partition/family settlement with his son Hardial Singh and transferred more than one half share of his land to Hardial Singh. Sultan Singh died intestate on 20.1.1980 and was succeeded by the plaintiff and defendants no.2 to 5 who inherited his estate in equal shares. After the death of Sultan Singh, Hardial Singh, brother of the plaintiff offered to cultivate the suit land for the plaintiff in return for giving the plaintiff 1/5th share of the value of the crop from the suit land. The offer was accepted by the plaintiff. During his life time, Hardial Singh continued paying one-fifth share of the value of the crops to the plaintiff. He died on 20.02.1994. After his death defendants No.1 and 2 stopped paying the plaintiff's share. They claimed to be the owners of the suit land in equal shares. On inquiry, the plaintiff learnt that Hardial Singh had illegally and unlawfully got the mutation of the suit land sanctioned in his favour on the basis of forged and fabricated Will dated 23.02.1974 alleged to have been executed by Sultan Singh in favour of Hardial Singh. The plaintiff disputed the Will. It was pleaded that for a period of 8-9 years preceding his death, Sultan Singh, was not in a sound disposing mind. It was stated that the mutation in favour of Hardial Singh was sanctioned without notice to the plaintiff and was not binding on her.
6. Defendant No.1 pleaded that originally Sultan Singh was the owner of the suit land. He had executed a valid Will of the suit land in favour of his only son Hardial on 23.2.1974 as Hardial Singh used to serve and look after him. His daughters were not given any share as Sultan Singh had already spent considerable amount on their marriage. Originally, Jhanda Singh father of Sultan Singh owned substantial land in Pakistan. On his death Sultan Singh succeeded to the same. After partition, the suit land was allotted to Sultan Singh in lieu of the land owned by him in Pakistan. The suit land was thus ancestral in the hands of Sultan Singh. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were personally present at the time of sanction of mutation in favour of Hardial Singh in 1983 on the basis of the Will executed by Sultan Singh. Defendants No.3 and 5 had filed affidavits admitting the genuineness of the Will and given their consent for sanctioning of mutat
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
