Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manisha Batra, J.
Pritam Kaur (Since deceased) though her legal representative - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh and others - Respondents - Respondent
RSA No.2134 of 1992 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-07-2023
WILL - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 - The court discussed the execution of the Will, suspicious circumstances, and the legal requirements for proving a Will. The court found that the appellant had produced sufficient, cogent, and convincing evidence to remove all suspicious circumstances and upheld the validity of the Will.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute over agricultural land inherited by the plaintiffs from their deceased relative. The defendant claimed ownership based on an unregistered Will allegedly executed by the deceased. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and hence it was not proved to be executed by the testator. However, the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to remove all suspicious circumstances and uphold the validity of the Will.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Will and the ownership of the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant had fulfilled the legal requirements for proving the Will and had produced sufficient evidence to remove all suspicious circumstances, thereby upholding the validity of the Will.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and that of the trial Court was restored.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.1992 passed in Civil Appeal No.RT-85 of 1990 titled as Rajinder Singh and others v. Pritam Kaur by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ropar whereby the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1989 passed in Civil Suit No.459 of 1986 titled as Rajinder Singh and others v. Pritam Kaur passed by the then learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kharar, had been set aside, the suit had been decreed and the appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs had been allowed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per the original nomenclature as given in the suit.
3. Brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that the agricultural land mentioned in detail in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter to be mentioned as the “disputed property”) was originally owned by one Deva Singh son of Jeevan Singh. After his death, the same was inherited by his two sons, namely, Gurdial Singh and Ajmer Singh. Sh. Ajmer Singh had died issueless on 02.12.1985. The plaintiffs who are children of Smt. Gurdial Kaur, real sister of Sh. Gurdial Singh and Ajmer Singh, had inherited the disputed property owned by Ajmer Singh being his nearest legal heirs. It was alleged that the defendant Smt. Pritam Kaur had, however, started claiming title over the same on the basis of an unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by Sh. Ajmer Singh and on the basis thereof had even got the mutation of inheritance of Sh. Ajmer Singh sanctioned in her favour. The plaintiffs alleged that the impugned Will was forged, fictitious and was not a genuine document. Accordingly, they prayed for passing a decree for declaration to the effect that after the death of Sh. Ajmer Singh, they had become co-owners of the disputed property and were entitled to joint possession of the same.
4. The defendant in her written statement did not deny the fact that the plaintiffs were children of sister of Sh. Ajmer Singh. It was pleaded that Sh. Ajmer Singh was married to her real sister Smt. Dyalo, who had died long time back. Sh. Ajmer Singh who was issueless, lived with the defendant and her husband during his life time and he was looked after by them. It was pleaded that being pleased with the services rendered by the defendant and out of natural love and affection for her, Sh. Ajmer Singh had executed a Will dated 27.10.1985 out of his free will and volition and while being in sound disposition of mind, thereby bequeathing his entire movable and immovable properties in her favour. It was asserted that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any right in respect of the disputed property and while controverting the remaining averments, the dismissal of the suit had been prayed for.
5. The plaintiffs filed replication resisting the pleas taken in the written statement and re-asserting those of the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were culled out by learned trial Court:-
2. Whether Ajmer Singh executed a valid will on 27.10.1985 in favour of defendant Pritam Kaur as alleged? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action? OPD
4. Relief.
6. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective assertions. Besides relying upon documentary evidence, the plaintiffs examined three witnesses, namely, PW-2 Harbans Singh, PW-3 Natha Singh and PW-4 Bishan Singh son of Buta Singh whereas plaintiff No.1 Rajinder Singh appeared as PW-1. In rebuttal evidence, one more witness namely, PW-5 Ajit Singh had been examined. The defendant Pritam Kaur, on the other hand, examined four witnesses namely, DW-2 Hakam Singh, DW-3 Gurvinder Singh, DW-4 Karam Singh and DW-5 Surjit Singh and herself appeared as DW-1.
7. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs by holding that the testator was proved to have bequeathed his properties in favou
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of legal requirements for proving a Will and the production of sufficient evidence to remove suspicious circumstances, thereby upho....
The propounder of a Will must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution to establish its validity.
A will's validity must be proven beyond suspicion, especially when claims of fraud or undue influence arise; the burden of proof lies on the party benefiting from the will under suspicious circumstan....
Precise compliance with statutory execution and proof requirements for Wills is necessary, especially when involving Pardanashin individuals; the burden of proof lies on those asserting the 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
