Dismissed

Ajit Singh v. Amir Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2012RSA/2370/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of heirship based on a disputed Will of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the appeal. The court held there was no substantial question of law as the courts below correctly discarded the Will due to suspicious circumstances, including the deceased residing with her daughter and the appellant's admitted involvement.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the Additional District Judge affirming the dismissal of the suit stands.

Ajit Singh Vs Amir Singh and Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No. 2370 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 9.1.2012.

Ajit Singh

--Appellant

Versus

Amir Singh & Another

--Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J (ORAL)

¶12

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶13

Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction as a consequential relief by pleading that he is the exclusive heir of his late mother Smt. Gurdeep Kaur on the basis of Will dated 3.5.1997 executed by late Smt. Gurdeep Kaur during her life time and as such, the plaintiff-appellant is the joint owner in possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellant was that his mother Smt. Gurdeep Kaur was recorded as joint owner in joint possession of the land in dispute. Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had died on 28.10.1997 leaving behind the plaintiff-appellant as the only legal heir on the basis of a registered Will dated 3.5.1997 and subsequent to her death the plaintiff-appellant became the joint owner in joint possession of the suit land. It was also pleaded that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had gone to visit defendant no.2, who was her daughter and it was at her daughter's residence that she died as she was a cancer patient. The defendants-respondents claimed to be the owners of the suit land and as such the present suit had been instituted.

¶14

RSA No. 2370 of 2011(O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

The defendants filed a joint written statement and preliminary objections in the nature of locus standi of the plaintiff-appellant to file the suit, suit being not maintainable and being not properly valued, were taken. It was pleaded on merits that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had purchased the suit land from the plaintiff-appellant vide sale deed dated 10.9.1971. It was pleaded that plaintiff-appellant was a waster and was habitual of taking liquor and it was under such circumstances that he had sold his total land to Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and others. It was alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff-appellant is now landless. The execution of the Will dated 3.5.1997 was categorically denied. It was alleged that such alleged Will was prepared by the plaintiff-appellant to grab the property of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur. On the other hand, it was pleaded that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had in turn sold the suit land from her self acquired property to defendant no.2 vide sale deeds dated 29.3.1996 and 18.4.1996. It was stated that the plaintiffappellant had never cared for his mother and had not even spent any amount on her treatment.

¶17

Upon the pleadings of the parties, following two relevant issues were framed by the trial court:-

¶18

Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession over the disputed property on the basis of Will dated 3.5.97?OPP.

¶19

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?”

¶20

The trial court after going through the records of the case and upon appreciation of the evidence led, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffappellant. Feeling dissatisfied the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil appeal and vide impugned judgement dated 14.12.2010 the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur has affirmed the findings of the trial court and has dismissed the appeal.

¶21

RSA No. 2370 of 2011(O&M) -3-

¶22

I have heard Mr. Sandeep Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length.

¶23

Mr. Bansal has vehemently argued that the courts below have misled, have not appreciated the documents and evidence on record in the right perspective and as such the findings of the courts below are perverse. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the courts below could not have ignored the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant for leading secondary additional evidence and it was incumbent for the court to have passed the order on the same prior to passing the impugned judgement and decree.

¶24

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and having perused the case file minutely, I do not find that there is any question of law that arises for determination in the present second appeal. The Will dated 3.5.1997 (Ex.P-1) has been discarded on account of various suspicious circumstances. The courts below have noticed that deceased Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had not been enjoying good relations with the plaintiff-appellant and accordingly was residing with the respondents-defendants for the last 30/40 years. Smt. Gurdeep Kaur in fact died in the residence of her daughter i.e. respondent no.2. The testimony of the plaintiff-appellant Ajit Singh would be most relevant, wherein in his cross-examination he had admitted that his mother Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had died while residing with Ajit Kaur, respondent no.2 and even the last rites and other religious ceremonies were performed by her daughter. The alleged Will dated 3.5.1997 (Ex.P-1) has totally ignored respondent no.2 i.e. the daughter of deceased Smt. Gurdeep Kaur with whom she had been living for the last 30 years prior to her demise. The

¶25

RSA No. 2370 of 2011(O&M) -4-

¶26

courts below have even noticed the active participation of the plaintiffappellant in the process of execution of the Will. PW-4 Gurbachan Singh admitted in his cross-examination that the Will was scribed in the house of the plaintiff-appellant. The Will had been got registered from the Tehsildar seven months after the execution and that too after the death of Smt. Gurdeep Kaur. PW-5 Ajit Singh, plaintiff-appellant himself admitted in his cross-examination that he was present at the time of execution of the Will. The Deed Writer, PW-2 Sukhwinder Jeet Singh even failed to produce the original register in which the alleged Will had been entered at the time of execution of the same. The testimony of DW-2 Amir Singh is also crucial, wherein it is stated that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had purchased the land in dispute vide two sale deeds dated 10.9.1971 from the plaintiff-appellant. He further deposed that plaintiff-appellant was a habitual drinker and under such circumstances towards fulfillment of need of money executed the sale deed of the land in favour of his mother. DW-2 Amir Singh deposed that the Will is a forged and fabricated document prepared in connivance with the Deed Writer and it is on account of such reason that the Deed Writer had not produced the original register in his evidence. Rather Smt. Gurdeep Kaur had executed sale deeds dated 29.3.1996 and 18.4.1996, Ex.D-1 and D-2 respectively in favour of defendant-respondent no.2.

¶27

It is in the light of such discussion and upon appreciation of evidence led on record that the courts below have reached a conclusion to discard the Will dated 3.5.1997. I do not find any perversity in the same. It may be noticed that an application of secondary evidence dated 22.10.2002 had in fact been moved by the plaintiff-appellant but no order had been passed on the same by the trial court. I am unable to accept the argument of

¶28

RSA No. 2370 of 2011(O&M) -5-

¶29

learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant that in terms of ignoring the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant for secondary additional evidence a great prejudice has been caused for the reason that two sale deeds dated 29.3.1996 and 18.4.1996 had been executed by the deceased Smt. Gurdeep Kaur in favour of Ajit Kaur, defendant-respondent no.2. The death certificate (Ex.D-5) reflects that Gurdeep Kaur had died on 28.10.1997 and her death was registered on 4.11.1997. The two sale deeds put up on record are prior to the death of Gurdeep Kaur and as such the deceased Gurdeep Kaur had already disposed of her property prior to her death and upon her demise she was not even the owner of the property in dispute. Even otherwise, the alleged Will dated 3.5.1997 has been discarded on a cogent and valid reasoning.

¶30

There is no question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for determination in the present second appeal.

¶31

The appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

¶32

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶33

9.1.2012. lucky

¶34

Whether to be reported? No.

Ajit Singh v. Amir Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh v. Amir Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulvir Singh & Anr. Vs Baljit Singh

Sant Ram Panthi and Ors. Vs Ram Swarath Bhushan and Ors.

Charan Singh Vs Teja Singh

M/S Namdev Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Baljinder Singh

Hans Raj Vs State of Punjab

Satwant Singh Vs State of Punjab