The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge 's order granting probate of a Will. Upholding the Single Judge 's findings that the Will was executed voluntarily and soundly, the Court rejected claims of suspicious features and blank execution.
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.
L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : October 13, 2010
Dr. Rana Harinder,
...... Appellant.
v.
Gunita and another,
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
*******
Present : Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
*******
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
**3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *****
MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.1.2003 granting probate of the Will dated 19.12.1997 executed by deceased-Daljit Kaur wife of Harjinder Singh. The appellant is the daughter of the testatrix while respondent No.1 is one of the two daughters of the appellant.
It is not disputed that the aforesaid Will was registered and that
L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M) ::2::
there was an unregistered codicil dated 17.5.1998. Before the learned Single Judge, the following issues were struck :-
At the very outset, it may be noticed that learned counsel for the respondent has stated that he does not press whatever rights his client may have obtained under the said codicil.
As regards issue No.1, the learned Single Judge has considered the evidence of the attesting witnesses as well as the original Will and came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 has succeeded in proving that the testatrix had executed the Will voluntarily while sound in all her faculties.
Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to certain discrepancies in the statements of the attesting witnesses and to certain alleged suspicious features in the Will which, as per him, suggest that the respondent had obtained the signatures of the testatrix on a blank piece of paper.
In our opinion, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the discrepancies are trivial cannot be termed to be a misreading of the evidence. Further, a perusal of the Will also corroborates the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is no indication that the signatures of the
L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M) ::3::
testatrix were obtained on a blank piece of paper. The presence of the testatrix at the time of registration is proved by the affixation of her photograph which had been attested. In the circumstances, we uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
Before parting with this judgment, we must add that learned counsel for the respondent has unequivocally undertaken on behalf of his client that she would not disturb the possession of the appellant over the house in Mohali (half of which belongs to the respondent as per the Will) during the life time of the appellant subject to the condition that the appellant does not in any manner alienate the same. We are informed that with regard to the ownership of half the share of the house in Mohali, civil proceedings are pending between the parties. We clarify that nothing contained in this judgment would affect those proceedings and they would be decided on their own merit.
( MUKUL MUDGAL ) CHIEF JUSTICE
( AJAY TEWARI ) October 13, 2010. JUDGE `kk'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether discrepancies in attesting witnesses' statements and suspicious features in the Will justify setting aside the probate granted by the Single Judge.
Whether the testatrix 's signatures were obtained on a blank piece of paper contrary to the finding of the lower court.
Whether the appellant is entitled to have the probate of the Will set aside on the grounds of alleged fraud and registration discrepancies.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Rana Harinder
Gunita
Mukul Mudgal
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
