Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
Satnam Singh - Appellant
Versus
Makhan Singh - Respondent
RSA-919-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-09-2023
WILL - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act - Section 68 - The court discussed the validity of the registered Will dated 22.12.1999 executed by Bhagwan Singh in favor of the plaintiff-Makhan Singh. The court found that the Will was well proved by the plaintiff through the examination of witnesses and compliance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also noted that the exclusion of the defendant from the property was not a suspicious circumstance as the Will itself contained the reason for the exclusion. The Will was held to be valid, and the rights in the property were to be succeeded by the plaintiff from his father Bhagwan Singh only.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership and possession of agricultural land based on registered Wills executed by his parents. The defendant, the plaintiff's real brother, disputed the existence of the Wills and claimed his own rights in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registered Will dated 22.12.1999 in favor of the plaintiff was well proved and valid, while the Will executed by the plaintiff's mother was not proved. The court held that the exclusion of the defendant from the property was not suspicious and that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Wills, the entitlement of the plaintiff to the decrees, the maintainability of the suit, estoppel, concealment of material facts, and the applicability of the principle of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was the validity of the registered Will dated 22.12.1999 in favor of the plaintiff, which was well proved and not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The court also emphasized the importance of compliance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act in proving the Will.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the decrees in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendant-Satnam Singh against the concurrent finding of decreetal of the suit in favour of the plaintiff-Makhan Singh.
2. Plaintiff-Makhan Singh claimed exclusive ownership along with possession of the properties; agricultural land measuring 32 kanal 3 marla comprised in khewat/khatoni No.33/35, 446/528 contained in khasra No.56//13/3(1-8), 17/2(1-6), 56//14(7-18), 15/1(0-17), 17/1(4-19), 18/1(1-1), 18/4(2-0), 23(7-13), 24/1(3-14), 76//3/2(0-9), 4/1(0-10), 198/6(0-4).
3. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed.
4. It is pleaded in the plaint that in the old age of his father, plaintiff served both the parents namely Bhagwan Singh and Smt. Kaushalya Devi (mother of plaintiff). Said Bhagwan Singh expired on 22.06.2000 and Smt. Kaushalya Devi expired on 18.05.2003.
During their lifetime, registered Will dated 22.12.1999 was executed by Bhagwan Singh in favour of plaintiff-Makhan Singh and similarly, Will dated 12.03.2003 was executed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi in favour of plaintiff-Makhan Singh.
5. In the written statement filed by the defendant-Satnam Singh (real brother of plaintiff) son of Bhagwan Singh, pleadings raised in the plaint was denied and on merits, it was submitted that there was no such Will executed by parents of the parties and rights in the properties are to be succeeded by the legal heirs of their father-Bhagwan Singh. Claiming his own right also in the property, defendant disputed the registered Will dated 22.12.1999 executed by Bhagwan Singh and Will dated 12.03.2003 executed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi.
6. Resultantly, vide order dated 20.01.2012, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD
6. Whether the present suit is barred by principle of resjudicata? OPD
7. Relief.”
7. Learned trial Court had examined the pleading in the evidence led by both the parties and reached to the conclusion that the registered Will dated 22.12.1999 is well proved by the plaintiff. However, Will executed by Kaushalya Devi was not held to be proved. Still, it has been held that non-proving of the Will executed by Kaushalya Devi would not be of any consequence because one acre of the suit property was only for the purpose of maintenance and to look after Kaushalya Devi and which was finally to vest in the plaintiff by virtue of Will dated 22.12.1999. Therefore, the rights in the property are to be succeeded by Makhan Singh from his father Bhagwan Singh only.
8. Finding recorded by learned trial Court in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 are reproduced here below:-
The validity of the registered Will dated 22.12.1999 and its compliance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The validity of a Will and the timeliness of challenging property mutations are crucial in inheritance disputes.
The onus to prove the alleged forgery and fabrication of the Will lies with the appellant, and the court may decline the prayer for leading additional evidence if the onus was not discharged.
The burden of proof for validating the execution of a Will rests with the propounder, necessitating unimpeachable evidence to satisfy judicial conscience.
The burden of proof rests on the party asserting the validity of a Will, which must be established free from suspicious circumstances.
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
