Advocates:
A. P. MOHANTY

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 16

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2006

PETITIONER:

Gurdev Kaur & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

Kaki & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/04/2006

BENCH:

Ruma Pal & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20797 of 2003]

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

Leave granted.

Judges must administer law according to the provisions

of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative

intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered

according to individual’s whim, desire, inclination and notion

of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos.

Indiscriminate and frequent interference under Section

100 C.P.C. in cases which are totally devoid of any substantial

question of law is not only against the legislative intention but

is also the main cause of huge pendency of second appeals in

the High Courts leading to colossal delay in the administration

of justice in civil cases in our country.

Despite declaration of law in numerous judgments, it is

evident that the scope and ambit of Section 100 C.P.C. has not

been properly appreciated and applied in a large number of

cases. We are, once again making a serious endeavour to

discern legislative intention, ambit and scope of interference

under Section 100 C.P.C.. We plan to carry out this exercise

by critically examining important judgments decided before

and after 1976 amendment in the Section 100 C.P.C.. This

effort is made with the hope that in future the High Courts

would decide according to the scope of Section 100 C.P.C. and

this Court may not be compelled to interfere with the

judgments delivered under Section 100 C.P.C..

Brief factual background

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the

Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 1.8.2003 passed in Civil

Regular Second Appeal 885 of 1983. By this judgment the

High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of facts of the

Courts below. The High Court consequently cancelled the

mutation of the property belonging to the deceased Chanan

Singh in favour of his wife Bhagwan Kaur and directed that

the property be mutated in favour of the heirs of the deceased

Chanan Singh in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act,

1956. This Court on 3.11.2003, while issuing notice on the

Special Leave Petition, directed the status-quo be maintained

in the meantime. Now this appeal has been placed before us

for final adjudication.

Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal,

are recapitulated as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 16

The case relates to the validity of the Will of the deceased,

Chanan Singh. The relationship between the parties is as

follows. The deceased Chanan Singh, s/o Hira Singh died on

6.2.1969. He had two wives. The first wife was Sham Kaur,

who died before Chanan Singh and the second wife was

Bhagwan Kaur. From the first wife Sham Kaur he had two

daughters Kaki and Har Kaur. Har Kaur also died on

29.9.1984. Kaki and Har Kaur are the plaintiffs in the Civil

Suit filed before the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Barnala

Bhagwan Kaur also had three daughters - Dalip Kaur,

Gurdev Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur. Chanan Singh deceased did

not have a son either from Bhagwan Kaur or from Sham Kaur.

The plaintiffs Kaki and Har Kaur filed a suit for joint

possession of the property of deceased Chanan Singh. It is not

disputed that the deceased Chanan Singh had two wives

Bhagwan Kaur and Sham Kaur. According to the plaintiffs

Kaki and Har Kaur, the deceased Chanan Singh did not

execute any Will out of his free will because he was not in a

position to protect his own welfare and in fact he was not in a

position to execute any Will at all.

Chanan Singh died on 6.2.1969 in Barnala and the

defendant Bhagwan Kaur got the mutation of inheritance of

Chanan Singh sanctioned from the concerned authority on the

basis o