Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Joginder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Sukhwant Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
RSA No. 1213 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-05-2022
Will - Property Dispute - 23.10.2000 - [Section 876, Indian Succession Act, 1925] - The court upheld the validity of the Will dated 23.10.2000, cancelling the earlier Will dated 10.07.1997 and bequeathing the entire property in favor of the plaintiff. The principle of lis pendens was applied to declare the sale deed executed during the pendency of the civil suit as invalid. The defendant no.5-appellant failed to prove the earlier Will and demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the judgments of the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the land left by her deceased husband based on a Will dated 23.10.2000. The defendant no.5-appellant challenged the validity of the Will and claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring her as the sole owner of the estate. The lower Appellate Court upheld the decision. The regular second appeal by the defendant no.5 was dismissed by the court.
Issues: Validity of the Will, Rights of Bona Fide Purchaser, Allegations of Collusion, Suppression of Material Facts, Locus Standi of the Plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the validity of the Will dated 23.10.2000, applied the principle of lis pendens to invalidate the sale deed executed during the civil suit, and found no evidence of collusion or suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. The defendant no.5 failed to prove the earlier Will and demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the judgments of the lower courts.
Final Decision: The regular second appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant no.5- appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 13.12.2013 and 16.09.2019, passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court respectively whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.l has been decreed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present Its are that one Hardeep Singh son of S. Thakur Singh was exclusive owner in possession in respect of the land measuring 30 kanals 7 marlas, as described in the headnote of the plaint, situated in village Sarhali Kalan, Tehsil and District Tam Taran. Hardeep Singh is stated to have died on 08.12.2000 leaving behind Sukhwant Kaur (plaintiff) as his widow, Ranjit Singh (defendant no.l) as his son and legal heir and Gurpreet Singh alias Gurmeet Kaur and Kanwaljit Kaur (defendant nos.2 and 3) as his daughters/legal heirs. The suit was filed by Sukhwant Kaur (plaintiff) on the ground that Hardeep Singh had great love and affection for her and hence he executed a registered Will dated 23.10.2000 bequeathing his entire estate in her favour. It was further averred that the defendants had no right or title in the suit land. Further, a challenge was laid to a Will dated 10.07.1997 executed in favour of Ranjit Singh (defendant no.l). Further, the plaintiff-respondent no.l challenged the sale deed dated 22.02.2008 qua 14 kanals 7 marlas of land in favour of Joginder Singh (defendant no.5) and sale deed dated 04.04.2008 qua 12 kanals of land executed by Ranjit Singh (defendant no.l) in favour of Narinder Singh (defendant no .4).
3. Ranjit Singh (defendant no.l) filed a written statement contending that his father Hardeep Singh had executed a registered Will dated 10.07.1997 in his favour and mutation no.876 was sanctioned in his favour in the year 2000 on the basis of the said Will. It was further averred that he had sold the suit land in favour of Narinder Singh (defendant no.4) vide registered sale deed dated 04.04.2008. He denied that the Will in his favour was cancelled and alleged that the Will set-up by his mother Sukhwant Kaur (plaintiff) was a forged and fabricated document. Narinder Singh (defendant no.4) and Joginder Singh (defendant no.5) filed separate written statements stating therein that the Will dated 23.10.2000 was a forged and fabricated document and that Ranjit Singh (defendant no.l) was the exclusive owner in possession of the land left by his father, Hardeep Singh, and that they had purchased the suit land for valuable consideration and were in actual physical possession of the same. They relied on the Will dated 10.07.1997 left by Hardeep Singh in favour of Ranjit Singh (defendant no.l). Sukhwant Kaur (plaintiff) filed replications reiterating the contents of her plaint.
4. Subsequently, the children of Hardeep Singh i.e. defendant nos.l to 3 were proceeded against exparte. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration to the effect that he is co-sharer and co-owner of suit land as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the land, as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court, if so, its effect ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit against defendant no.4, who is bona fide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration without notice of alleged rights of the plaintiff? OPD
7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD
Additional issues framed on 07.11.2013 :
1. Whether Hardeep Singh e
The validity of the Will dated 23.10.2000 and the application of the principle of lis pendens in property disputes.
Exclusion of natural heirs is insufficient to invalidate a Will; the burden of proof lies on the appellant to demonstrate fraud or lack of testamentary capacity.
Validity of the executed will takes precedence over ancestral property claims in absence of sufficient proof.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will, failing which the Will may be rejected.
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
