IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (121)

Date of Decision:-08.10.2025 PARDEEP CHOPRA AND ANOTHER … Appellants Versus MEENU KAPOOR AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The appellants/defendants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, challenging the findings of fact and law rendered by the Courts below. By judgment and decree dated 12.04.2024 in Civil Suit No.CS-14-2016 titled ‘Meenu Kapoor vs. Pardeep Chopra and Others’, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, partly decreed the suit with costs. Subsequently, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, by judgment and decree dated 25.08.2025 in Civil Appeal CIS No.CA/75/2024, partly allowed the appeal; the relief of permanent injunction was dismissed, while the declaration of ownership and joint possession in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents to the extent of 1/5^th share in inheritance of Late Sh. Satpal Chopra was upheld. The alleged Will of Satpal Chopra was declared illegal, null-&-void, and of no effect, and accordingly set-aside.

1.1. The appellants/defendants contend that the Courts below have gravely erred in law and fact by misappreciating the pleadings, evidence, and well-settled legal principles governing inheritance, testamentary succession, and proof of Wills under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The impugned judgments are, therefore, perverse, unsustainable, and call for interference by this Court.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience in the ensuing discussion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants, as they appeared before the learned Trial Court. The salient facts of the case are summarized below to provide a comprehensive contextual background:-

“As per the plaintiff, Late Sh. Satpal Chopra (father of the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2, and 4, and husband of defendant No.3) and Late Smt. Vidya Wanti (grandmother of the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2, and 4, and mother-in-law of defendant No.3) were joint owners of the suit properties, each holding a half share. Satpal Chopra also owned the residential house mentioned in the plaint. After Smt.Vidya Wanti’s intestate death in 1985, her share devolved upon her son, Satpal Chopra, making him the sole owner. He also died intestate on 12.07.2013, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to

4 as his legal heirs, each entitled to a one-fifth share.

The plaintiff and her husband went to Canada in August

2014. When her husband returned to India in January 2015, he approached the defendants for sanctioning the mutation of inheritance, but defendants No.1 to 3 refused, claiming ownership on the basis of alleged Wills of Satpal Chopra and Vidya Wanti. The plaintiff contends that both died intestate and that the alleged Wills are forged and fabricated. Defendants No.1 and 2, in collusion with revenue officials, manipulated the records and got mutations sanctioned in their favour without notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no objection to sales made by Satpal Chopra during his lifetime, but the alienation made by defendants No.1 and 2 beyond their one-fifth shares are illegal. The Assistant Collector wrongly sanctioned the mutations based on forged Wills, which are liable to be set aside. Defendants No.1 to 3, each having only a one-fifth share, are now threatening to alienate more than their lawful shares, compelling the plaintiff to file the present suit.”

3. The defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, raising preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of material facts. On the merits, they contended that the plaintiff had been disowned and disinherited by Late Sh. S