Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Ishar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Kulwant Kaur & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 3036 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-07-2019
Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the Respondent No. l
The beneficiary of a Will must provide a plausible explanation for suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, and the claim of murder must be substantiated with evidence.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 25, 302/34 IPC - [HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 25, 302/34 IPC] - The court discussed the alleged Will dated 6.2.2009, the suspicious circumstances surrounding it, and the claim of natural succession by the plaintiff against the testamentary succession claimed by the defendant. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its application to the case, emphasizing the need for the beneficiary to explain suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The court also analyzed the evidence related to the death of the deceased and rejected the claim of murder, thereby affirming the plaintiff's right to inherit the estate of her deceased husband.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, widow of the deceased, brought a suit against the defendants seeking a declaration that an alleged Will is illegal and not binding upon her rights, and claiming ownership of a share of the suit property. The defendants contested the suit, alleging murder by the plaintiff and claiming ownership based on the alleged Will.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the claim of murder and affirmed the plaintiff's right to inherit the estate of her deceased husband. It found the alleged Will to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances, which the defendant failed to explain, and upheld the claim of natural succession by the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, maintainability of the suit, locus standi, and cause of action to file the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the beneficiary to explain suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and rejected the claim of murder, affirming the plaintiff's right to inherit the estate of her deceased husband.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and upholding the plaintiff's claim of natural succession.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
H.S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Kulwant Kaur widow of Jaswant Singh, resident of Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, had brought a suit against the defendants Ishar Singh, brother, Mohinder Kaur, Harbans Kaur (since deceased through her legal representatives) and Harnam Kaur, married sisters of her deceased husband, seeking a declaration that alleged Will dated 6.2.2009, allegedly executed by late Jaswant Singh in favour of Ishar Singh - defendant No.1, regarding his movable and immovable properties, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff, rather is a forged and fabricated document, liable to be set aside and that the plaintiff is owner in possession of one half share standing in the name of her deceased husband Jaswant Singh, in the suit land detailed in head note of the plaint, besides craving for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the suit land and forcibly dispossessing her therefrom.
2. As per version of the plaintiff, she was married with Jaswant Singh and the couple cohabited together, however, they were not blessed with any child; that Jaswant Singh was owner in possession of the suit property in addition to other movable and immovable properties situated at Mandi Gobindgarh and at village Kukar Majra, District Fatehgarh; that Jaswant Singh was not keeping good health and he used to remain under depression; that he committed suicide with his own licenced gun; that during his life time Jaswant Singh had been living with the plaintiff; that he had 1/6th share in the land situated at village Fatehpur, District Yamuna Nagar, whereas defendants No. 2 to 4 i.e. sisters of Jaswant Singh also had 1/6th share each in the land situated at village Fatehpur, but they had relinquished their shares in the land in favour of Jaswant Singh. Resultantly, Jaswant Singh became owner in possession to the extent of one half share in that land. Mutations No. 669 and 670 were sanctioned by the revenue authorities in that regard; that after the death of Jaswant Singh, mutation No. 703 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff being widow and as such his legal heir; that defendant No. 1 Ishar Singh propounded impugned Will dated 6.2.2009; that the mutation was disputed and was contested by the parties. The plaintiff came to know about the alleged Will on 8.4.2009 when Ishar Singh had staked his claim during mutation proceedings. According to the plaintiff, the suit land involved was joint with defendants No. 1 to 4 and it was proposed to file a petition for partition; that for that purpose Ishar Singh had obtained signatures of Jaswant Singh on certain papers. However, the petition could not be filed; that the alleged Will bears signatures of Rajesh Kumar, Lumberdar of village Bhagwan Pur and Balbir Singh as attesting witnesses. However, no respectable person was joined for attesting the alleged Will; that Balbir Singh is a cousin brother of defendant No.1, who has joined hands with the latter to forge the Will, which as a matter of fact is surrounded by suspicious circumstances; that the alleged Will is not registered with Sub Registrar of the area and is purportedly attested by a Notary Public; that no photograph(s) of the executant or of the witnesses have been affixed on the alleged Will; that the Will is typed in single space on a green paper of legal size, when it could have been typed in double space; that all the circumstances show that signatures of Jaswant Singh were already on the paper and it was typed in single space so as to adjust the signatures of the deceased; that Jaswant Singh was not keeping well for the last 1-1/2 years prior to his death and remained under depression and ultimately committed suicide. The Will set up by defendant No.1 is dated 6.2.2009, whereas Jaswant Singh died on 5.3.2009, i.e. after about one month of execution of the alleged Will. Theref
