The court affirmed that notarized documents from abroad are presumed truthful, allowing foreign nationals to inherit under the Hindu Succession Act if supported by valid evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

1. The contesting defendant No. 1 is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, seeking a decree declaring the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 to be owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Bahal Singh S/o Bagga Singh to the extent of 1/5th share of the property as detailed in the plaint; and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from alienating, mortgaging, disposing of in any manner any part of the suit property on the basis of impugned mutation, has been partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.07.2018. The said decree was challenged by the defendant No. 1 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur by way of Civil Appeal No. 331 of 21.07.2018 which was dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2022. Hence, the present second appeal.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the ‘defendant No. 1; contesting respondent No. 1 as the ‘plaintiff’ and pro forma respondents No. 2 to 4 as the ‘defendants No. 2 to 4’.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for decree of declaration declaring the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 to be the owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh to the extent of 1/5th share of the suit property, on the basis of natural succession. The plaintiff also sought setting aside the mutation No. 11585-A sanctioned in favour of the appellant/defendant No. 1 regarding the estate of Bahal Singh. The plaintiff further sought declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 to be the owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Dalip Kaur widow of Bahal Singh being the legal heirs of her predeceased son namely Paramjit Singh on the basis of natural succession and further setting aside mutation No. 11718-A sanctioned in favour of appellant/ defendant No. 1 regarding the estate of Dalip Kaur widow of Bahal Singh. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 to be the owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh being the widow and daughter of Paramjit Singh on the basis of natural succession. Setting aside of mutation No. 11587 regarding the estate of Paramjit Singh sanctioned in favour of Dalip Kaur widow of Bahal Singh was also sought. Further decree of permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant No. 1 qua the suit property was also sought.

4. The case set up by the plaintiff is that Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh was co-owner in the suit property mentioned in the head note of the plaint. Said Bahal Singh died on 22.1.2002, leaving behind Dalip Kaur widow, Birdevinder Singh-son (appellant), Sarabjit Kaur-daughter, Ravinder Kaur-daughter, and plaintiff and defendant No. 4 being daughter and wife of predeceased son of Bahal Singh namely, Paramjit Singh. Dalip Kaur also died on 3.6.2003.

5. The plaintiff’s case was that Sukhmohinder Kaur-defendant No. 4 married Paramjit Singh i.e. son of Bahal Singh and Dalip Kaur on 24.1.1981 and Marriage Registration Certificate No. 1981 was issued. Out of the wedlock of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur, one female child namely, Parminder Kaur-plain