The Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Upholding findings that the testator lacked a sound disposing mind due to delirium, the Court held no substantial question of law arose.
The appeal is dismissed, and the impugned judgments and decrees are upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.S.A. No. 2833 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2833 of 2009 Date of Decision: 03.08.2009
1. Kartar Singh son of Sain Dass s/o Tej Ram, r/o village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
2. Smt. Darshna Devi wd/o Kuldip Singh, s/o Sain Dass, r/o village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
3. Balram Singh;
4. Sushil Singh; both s/o Kuldip Singh son of Sain Dass, r/o village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
... Appellants
Versus
1. Tasvir Singh;
2. Raghbir Singh; both s/o Sain Dass, r/o village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
3. Smt. Shanti d/o Sain Dass w/o Uttam Singh r/o village Shamsherpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
4. Smt. Pushpa Devi d/o Sain Dass w/o Pritam Singh r/o village Ferozepur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur.
5. Anju Bala d/o Kuldip Singh s/o Sain Dass r/o village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
...Respondents
6. Wazir Singh s/o Sain Dass s/o Tej Ram r/o village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
...Proforma-Respondent
R.S.A. No. 2833 of 2009
2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 31.05.2002, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurdaspur, vide which, it dismissed the suit, and the judgement and decree dated 28.11.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.
R.S.A. No. 2833 of 2009
3
suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was stated that Sain Dass, died on 19.09.1997. It was denied that he executed the Will, referred to above, in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2. It was further stated that defendants No. 3 and 4, being also the legal heirs of Sain Dass, inherited his estate alongwith the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2.
struck:-
the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit, holding that Sain Dass, did not execute the aforesaid Will, in sound disposing mind.
R.S.A. No. 2833 of 2009
4
has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants.
R.S.A. No. 2833 of 2009
5
the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The dispute revolved around the execution, legality, and validity of the Will dated 22.10.1990, by Sain Dass. From the judgements of the Courts below, it is evident, that Sain Dass, was aged about 90 years, at the time, he allegedly executed the Will. Subhas Chander, scribe of the will, appeared as PW1, and stated that, he did not know Sain Dass. In his cross-examination, conducted on 23.02.2001, he stated that, he could not identify Sain Dass. He further admitted, during the course of his cross-examination, that it was possible, that in place of Sain Dass, some other person might have thumb marked the Will. He further admitted that he had not written the name on the thumb impression allegedly that of Sain Dass. He further admitted that the thumb impression, had been obtained on the paper, in such a manner, that it might not be comparable. Onkar Singh, is an attesting witness of the Will. During the course of his cross-examination, it was stated by him, that he was the close friend of the plaintiffs/appellants. He further stated that he did not know, as to who executed the Will. He further stated, during the course of his cross-examination, that the Will, was not written, in his presence, nor was read-over to Sain Dass. He further stated that, even he did not know, as to who dictated the Will. It was admitted by him, during the course of his cross-examination, that said Sain Dass, was suffering from illness and his orientation was not intact. In other words, he was not having a sound disposing mind, but was in delirium. He further stated, during the course of his cross-examination, that Sain Dass, was not knowing, as to what was being written, on his behalf. Kartar Singh, plaintiff, when appeared, as his own witness, during the course of his cross-examination stated, that they used to carry Sain Dass, executant of the Will, in
R.S.A. No. 2833 of 2009
6
unconscious condition. Tasvir Singh, defendant No. 1, when appeared as PW7, stated that his father, was not knowing, as to, in which direction, he was going. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that no legal and valid Will, was executed by Sain Dass, as he could not be said to be in sound disposing mind, at the relevant time. The onus lay heavily upon the propounders, to prove the execution, legality, and validity of the Will, but they failed to do so. The Courts below, were, thus, right in discarding the Will, allegedly executed by Sain Dass. The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
(SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE
03.08.2009 Amodh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts regarding the mental soundness of the testator at the time of will execution under Section 100
Whether the findings that the executant was suffering from delirium and did not have a sound disposing mind justify setting aside the dismissal of the suit?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar PillaiReferred¶48
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533 · Who else cites this
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik SinghReferred¶48
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270 · Who else cites this
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. DasappaReferred¶48
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228 · Who else cites this
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and othersReferred¶48
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, · Who else cites this
Kartar Singh
Smt. Darshna Devi
Balram Singh
Sushil Singh
Tasvir Singh
Raghbir Singh
SHAM SUNDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
