Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3833
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Angrej Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Manjeet Kaur - Respondent
RSA No. 620 of 2017
Decided On : 15-05-2018
P.S. Poonia, Advocate, for the Appellants; Baldev Singh Badhran, Advocate, for the Respondents
Compliance with the attestation requirements of a will and the need for evidence to prove relationships are crucial for establishing ownership and inheritance rights.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(C), Section 50 of Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 63(C) of the Indian Succession Act, which requires a will to be attested by two or more witnesses, and the requirements for proving the execution of a will under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court highlighted the failure to comply with the attestation requirements and the lack of evidence to prove the relationship between the parties, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of land based on a will executed by Labh Singh in 1992 in favor of Ajmer Singh. The defendants contested the suit, denying the validity of the will and the relationship between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the will was not properly attested as required by Section 63(C) of the Indian Succession Act and there was a lack of evidence to prove the relationship between the parties, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: Validity of the will, relationship between the parties, compliance with attestation requirements, and limitation for claiming title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the failure to comply with the attestation requirements of the will and the lack of evidence to prove the relationship between the parties as the key factors influencing the decision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, allowing the appeal in favor of the defendants.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J. (Oral) - The LRs of defendant No. 2-Joginder Singh have challenged concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration claiming ownership in equal shares on the basis of will dated 25.11.1992 executed by Labh Singh in respect of land measuring 19 kanal 19 marlas with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa and the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2016 while allowing the cross objections of the plaintiffs dismissed the appeal of the defendants.
2. The brief facts, which emanates from the pleadings are that the plaintiffs instituted the suit on the premise that one Kanha Singh was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit. Said Kahna Singh had four sons namely Jagan Singh, Joginder Singh, Dilawar Singh and Labh Singh. Joginder Singh and Dilawar Singh pre deceased Kanha Singh. It was averred that Ajmer Singh in the year 1964 was adopted by Labh Singh (at the age of six months). Labh Singh died on 05.2.1993 whereas Ajmer Singh died on 18.2.2010. Owing to the death of Labh Singh, mutation was effected as per natural succession, which was totally illegal, null and void, for, Labh Singh during his life time executed a will dated 25.11.1992 in favour of Ajmer Singh as he was adopted son. The respondents-plaintiffs approached the defendants with the request to get the revenue record corrected but the said request was not acceded to, which gave rise to file the suit.
3. Upon notice, the suit was contested by the contesting defendants particularly by Jagan Singh, who was arrayed as defendant No. 1. Said Jagan Singh died during the pendency of the suit. It was averred that Ajmer Singh was not his natural son much less nor adopted by Labh Singh. Pleas of limitation as also no accrual of cause of action were also taken.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of declaration and possession as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiffs are also entitled for injunction, if any? OPP
3. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD
6. Whether the suit is hopelessly time barred? OPD
7. Relief."
5. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs examined two witnesses besides tendering documents i.e Ex.PA Original Will dated 25.11.1992, Ex.P1 Ration Card issued at Delhi, Ex.P2 Death certificate of Mukand Kaur, Ex.P3 Copy of death certificate of Labh Singh, Ex.P4 copy of ration card of Ajmer Singh, Ex.P5 copy of birth certificate of Simran Kaur as also Ex.P.6 to Ex.P20.
6. On the other hand, the defendants examined three witnesses i.e DW1-Gurmit Singh, Balwinder Singh, Patwari as DW2 and Ram Singh, Lamberdar as DW3 besides bringing on record documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW3/B.
7. On the basis of preponderance of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs but did not grant relief of possession. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed but cross objections of the plaintiffs were allowed by the lower Appellate Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-LRs of Joginder Singh son of Kanha Singh submitted that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence as well as law in correct perspective, for, the Will dated 25.11.1992 has not seen the light of the day as Labh Singh died on 05.2.1993 and Ajmer Singh expired on 18.2.2010 whereas the suit was filed on 03.4.2013. During the proceedings viz-a-viz estate of Labh Singh when initiated in the year 1995, sh
