Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Kanwaljit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Gurbax Singh (deceased Through His Lrs) & Ors. – Respondents
RSA-1274-2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-05-2022
Will - Property Dispute - 18.06.2002 - [Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63] - The court found that the Will dated 18.06.2002 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and did not comply with the statutory requirements for proving the Will. The execution of a Will must be proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the Will are satisfied but the Will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances. The Will was held to be surrounded with suspicious circumstances and both the Courts below have returned findings of fact rejecting the Will. No evidence was presented to establish the genuineness of the Will or remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding it.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration as co-owners of a property and for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 claimed ownership based on a Will dated 18.06.2002 allegedly executed by Sh. Ajit Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, rejecting the Will dated 18.06.2002. The appeal by the defendant No.1 was dismissed, and the present regular second appeal was also dismissed by the court.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction, the effect of the Will dated 18.08.2002, and the maintainability of the plaintiffs' suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Will dated 18.06.2002 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and did not comply with the statutory requirements for proving the Will. The execution of a Will must be proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the Will are satisfied but the Will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.1-appellant against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.2 to 4 are co-owners co-sharers in joint possession over the property marked by letters ABCD situated at Vishkarma Road, Ajit Singh Wali Gali, near Dr. Marwaha Hospital, Batala, District Gurdaspur with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from interfering with the plaintiffs or defendants Nos.2 to 4 in the suit property or alienating, transferring or mortgaging the suit property illegally, unlawfully, forcibly and in any manner what so ever. As per the plaintiffs, the suit property belonged to Sh. Ajit Singh son of Sh. Sant Kartar Singh who purchased the same from one Sh. Chet Singh vide registered sale deed dated 01.04.1971 and the possession of the suit property was also handed over to Sh. Ajit Singh at the time of execution of the sale deed. Sh. Ajit Singh died on 18.08.2002 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 as his legal heirs and representatives to inherit his estate, including the suit property, to the extent of 1/6 share each. The wife of Sh. Ajit Singh had predeceased him. It was averred that the defendant No.1, who is the wife of the defendant No.2 (son of Sh. Ajit Singh), has got no right, title or interest of any nature in the suit property but defendant No.1 was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 from the suit property and alienate the same on the basis of a forged and fabricated Will of Sh. Ajit Singh. Sh. Ajit Singh did not execute any legal or valid Will during his lifetime and the alleged Will is false, fabricated, forged, manufactured and bogus.
3. On notice, written statement was filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who denied that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4 have inherited the suit property or they have any right, title and interest in the suit property after the death of Sh. Ajit Singh. It was averred that Sh. Ajit Singh was residing with the family of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 who were looking after and serving Sh. Ajit Singh and that after the death of Sh. Ajit Singh the suit property had been inherited by the answering defendants on the basis of a Will dated 18.06.2002 duly executed by Sh. Ajit Singh in favour of the defendant No.1. It was denied that the plaintiffs or the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are in possession of the suit property and it was denied that the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.2 to 4 are co-sharers, co-owners in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/6 share each. It was denied that the Will executed by Sh. Ajit Singh is false or fabricated or forged or manufactured or bogus and rather the Will is legal, valid and genuine and is binding upon the plaintiffs and the other defendants.
4. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs.
5. The plaintiffs filed a replication controverting the stand taken in the written statements and reiterating the contents of the plaint.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the plaintiff are entitled for declaration as prayed for ? OPP
(ii) Whether plaintiff are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
(iii) Whether Ajit Singh executed a Will dated 18.08.2002 in favour of defendant No.1, if so its effect ? OPD
(iv) Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable ? OPD
(v) Relief.
7. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2016, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and passed a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.2 to 4 are co-owners, co- sharers in joint possession over the suit property and restrained the defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiffs
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a convincing explanation of suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of a will, as emphasized in the case of Jaswant ....
The execution of a Will must be proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the Will are satisfied but the Will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances.
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.
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 propounder of a Will must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution to establish its validity.
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
