SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Amrik Singh (deceased) through LRs & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Charan Singh (deceased) through LRs & Ors. – Respondents
R.S.A.No. 43 of 1990
Decided On : 14-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. K.S. Sidhu Senior, Advocate, Mr. Praagbir S. Dhindsa, Mr. Neeraj Sharma

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - The appellants challenged the findings of the lower Appellate Court which partly decreed the plaintiff-respondents’ suit for joint possession of land and compensation. The lower Appellate Court found that both Wills presented were rejected, leading to property devolving by natural succession. The contested Will (Ex.D1) was admitted but claimed to be shrouded in suspicious circumstances. The Court held that such deprivation of heirs by a Will does not itself constitute suspicion. (Paras 18-19)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - The appeal concerns whether a Will (Ex.D1) was duly executed and its implications under the Indian Succession Act. The Court ruled that the execution of the Will does not have to meet a standard of mathematical certainty but should satisfy the prudent mind, affirming that the Will was validly executed without suspicion. (Paras 13-19)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arises from the estate of Kishan Singh, who left land that was claimed by both parties through different Wills, leading to contestation regarding their validity and the rightful heirs. The plaintiffs claimed rights based on a later Will (Ex.P1) which was never proved.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the first Will (Ex.D1) duly registered and executed, hence valid and proper, dismissing claims of suspicion against it.

Issues: The central question was whether Will Ex.D1 was shrouded in suspicious circumstances and whether lower courts’ decrees were perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the mere fact that natural heirs are excluded does not render a Will suspicious; the legal obligation to provide for natural heirs does not negate the testator's will.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and key facts (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. issues framed by the trial court (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's review of trial court's findings (Para 6 , 10)
4. arguments for both sides regarding the will (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 15)
5. judicial reasoning concerning suspicious circumstances of the will (Para 14 , 16 , 17)
6. final ruling on the validity of the will (Para 18 , 19)

Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been partly decreed for joint possession to the extent of 1/7th share each in the suit land as well as in the compensation amount. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.01.1987 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Will Ex.D1 dated 18.07.1980 set up by the defendant-appellants was also disbelieved. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.01.1987, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants and the defendant-appellants herein filed cross-objections challenging the findings of the Trial Court on Issue No.4. The lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.1989 partly decreed the suit and rejected the cross-objections filed by the defendant-appellants. The lower Appellate Court held that the left over property in the hands of Kishan Singh was self acquired property and since both the Wills stood rejected, hence, the property would devolve by way of natural succession on all the heirs and hence each of the heirs would be entitled to 1/7th share. The present appeal was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2008. The said judgment was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 by filing SLP(C)-9438-2009, which was later converted into Civil Appeal No.6495 of 2016. The said civil appeal was decided vide order dated 19.07.2016 and the judgment dated 10.11.2008 passed by this Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for a decision afresh.

2. The pedigree table of the parties is reproduced herein below:

3. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that Kishan Singh had four sons and two daughters as depicted in the pedigree table above. Kishan Singh’s wife, Santo, was also a party to the lis having been impleaded as defendant-respondent No.3. Kishan Singh was the owner of land measuring 91 Kanals and 04 Marlas having inherited the same from his father, Mulla Singh. In 1972 a civil suit was filed by the defendant-appellants - Mewa Singh and Amrik Singh - as well as by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Charan Singh and Bhajan Singh - against their father Kishan Singh for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs therein were jointly owners in possession in equal shares, with shamlat rights, of the land measuring 91 Kanals and 04 Marlas. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.1972 (Ex.D2 and Ex.D3) and a consent decree was passed. As per the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs therein that is the four sons of Kishan Singh were declared as owners in possession of the suit property involved therein. After the passing of the consent decree, Kishan Singh was left with some land in Village Kumbra, District Ropar and in Village Nizampur Kumbra, UT Chandigarh. Some portion of the land left by him in Village Nizampur Kumbra, UT Chandigarh was acquired the compensation for which was deposited in the Treasury. Kishan Singh died in the year 1981 and the dispute in the present case is qua his land in Village Kumbra, District Ropar and in Village Nizampur Kumbra, UT Chandigarh and the amount of compensation lying deposited in the Treasury.

4. The plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the present suit for declaration to the effect th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top