2023 Supreme(P&H) 2690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. WALIA, J.
Kranti Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Raksha Devi & Ors. – Respondents
RSA NO. 640 of 2023(O&M)
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate; For the Appellant
Headnote:(A) Property Law - Suit for declaration of ownership - Regular second appeal dismissed where courts below found Will to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances - Validity of execution and credibility of evidence leading to Will questioned, underscoring importance of proper documentation in inheritance disputes. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Legal Principle - A Will is considered suspicious if the execution process reveals inconsistencies like delayed disclosure, improper drafting, and inadequate witnessing that undermine its integrity. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-plaintiff claimed inheritance based on a Will dated 23.12.2007, purportedly executed by his deceased father Tarlochan Dev Sharma who died on 06.06.2008. The respondents denied the relationship and the validity of the Will, asserting unlawful distributions and suggesting the plaintiff's lack of standing. (Paras 1-8)
Findings of Court:
Both courts upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, asserting the Will lacked credibility due to suspicious factors such as timing, documentation irregularities, and lack of critical witness examination. (Paras 8, 12-13)
Issues: The court addressed whether the trial court correctly dismissed the suit based on the Will's validity and the appellant's legal standing. (Paras 2, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that delays and irregularities in the execution and presentation of the Will created a strong suspicion against its validity, validating the lower courts' conclusions. (Paras 11-14)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession declaration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenging the validity of the will. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. suspicion based on timing and execution of the will. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final dismissal of appeal. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. B.S. Walia, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the instant regular second appeal is to judgment and decree dated 19.11.2022, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017, passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.
2. A perusal of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court reveals that the appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that he was owner and possession of the properties
A. Kothi constructed in the land measuring 200 Sq. Yards bearing Kothi No.351, DalimaVihar, Rajpura being 200/160295 share out of KhasraNos.235 to 260, 261/2, 262 to 264, 265/2, 267/2, 268 to 272 situated in the revenue estate of Rajpura, Teh. Rajpura Distt. Patiala as per Jamabandi for the year 2006-2007.
B.Land measuring 150 Sq. yards being 150/17600, 2 share comprising in Khewat/khata no.129/246 khasra numbers 821, 858 min, 860 and 861 out of the total land measuring 17 Bighas 12 Biswas and 20/267 i.e. 1 Bighas of land out of Khewat/Khatano.276/555 comprising in Khasra numbers 811, 812, 821 out of total land measuring 13 Bighas 7 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Dhakansu Kalan, Teh. Rajpura Distt. Patiala as per Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004.
C.The property measuring 3 Kanal being ½ share of the total land measuring 6 Kanals comprising in Khasra numbers 23//11, 24//15/1 purchased by Sh. Tarlochan Dev Sharma vide registered sale deed dated 18.9.1989 bearing vasika no.2610 on the North Eastern Portion situated in revenue estate of Rajpura, Teh. Rajpura Distt. Patiala.
D.Kothi no. 579/12 measuring 9 Marlas being 3/20 share out of Khasra No. 8//13/9 situated in Sonia Colony, within the revenue estate of village Singha Wala, Hisar road, Ambala City and defendant no.1 has got no concern with these properties. And further Suit for declaration to the effect that the mutation of inheritance of deceased Sh. Tarlochan Dev Sharma father of the plaintiff sanctioned in the name of defendant No.1 to the extent of ½ share with the plaintiff bearing mutation no. 17250 of Rajpura regarding property mentioned in the heading A and mutation no. 9618 pertaining to property mentioned in heading B of village Dhakansu Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala are illegal, null and void and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff And Further suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by defendant no.1 bearing wasika no.6184 dated 5.2.2010, Wasika No. 491 dated 29.4.2010, wasika nos.1214 to 1217 dated 25.5.10 in favour of defendants no. 2 to 9 out of the suit property are wrong, illegal and are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff over the suit property and are liable to be ignored And Further Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from selling, alienating, encumbering, demolishing or changing the nature of the suit proprieties mentioned above.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not legally maintainable? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether suit is under valued and ad valorem court fee has not been affixed? OPD
4. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issue Nos.1 & 2 in favour of the respondents-defendants and against the plaintiff-appellant, while issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 were decided against the respondents-defendants and in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and i
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
