Regular second appeal challenging judgment dismissing suit for declaration of title based on Will. High Court found the Will invalid due to suspicious circumstances and held adoption deed valid, dismissing appeal.
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Courts below affirmed.
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.
RSA-488-2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Regular Second Appeal No.488 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 26, 2016.
Mange Ram and others
..........APPELLANT(s).
VERSUS
Parkash and others
........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Dr. Praveen Hans, Advocate for the appellant (s).
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
This is regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by plaintiffs claiming title over the estate of Tohfa Bai daughter of Rampat on the basis of Will dated 13.11.2000 and declaration that defendants have no concern in any manner with the suit land and consequently, mutation of inheritance No.1173 dated 01.03.2007 in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of registered adoption deed dated 26.05.1995 is illegal, null and void.
(i) The conduct of the scribe was not found genuine as on SACHIN MEHTA 2016.06.09 12:07 13.11.2000, he had prepared/scribed three Wills of three sisters namely Smt. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
RSA-488-2014
-2-
Tohfa Bai, Bhagwani Bai and Hardei daughters of Ganpat @ Rampat son of Daulat Ram but Bhagwani Bai had already died on 22.10.2000 and the counsel for the plaintiffs could not explain how a dead person could execute the Will.
(ii) PW8 Ramesh Kumar had stated that Tohfa Bai had executed a Will in favour of plaintiffs in the year 1999 while the Will propounded by plaintiffs is of the year 2000.
(iii) Satpal, marginal witness of the Will has stated that stamp paper for the Will were bought by Smt. Tohfa Bai. The other marginal witness Banarsi Dass stated that he and Satpal Lamberdar bought the stamp paper but the Will was executed on a plain paper.
(iv) PW1 Satpal, marginal witness of the Will stated that there was no Lamberdar in village Jeetpura, as such, Tohfa Bai had to call the Lamberdar from neighbouring village Behtor Rangar, while the other marginal witness Banarsi Dass Lamberdar stated that there was already a Lamberdar in village Jeetpura.
(v) The Will was unregistered and this assumes importance in view of the fact that in the year 1977, Tohfa Bai had executed a registered Will, as such, was fully conversant with the process of registration of Will. As per the plaintiffs, she remained alive for about four years after execution of the Will, as such, she was having enough time to get it registered.
(vi) If the plea of plaintiffs be believed that Tohfa Bai had no legal heir, in that eventuality, plaintiffs were the natural successors to her property and there was no need to execute any Will in their favour.
(vii) Registered adoption deed dated 26.05.1995 executed by Tohfa
SACHIN MEHTA 2016.06.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
RSA-488-2014
-3-
Bai which is a memorandum of adoption of defendant No.1 Parkash when he was six years of age, was held to be a valid document.
SACHIN MEHTA 2016.06.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
RSA-488-2014
-4-
SACHIN MEHTA 2016.06.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
RSA-488-2014
-5-
(Pandit Ram Chander) had performed the ' Path of Garud Puran' and ceremonies of ' Rasam Pagri' on the death of Tohfa Bai. The turban, which was brought by appellants-plaintiffs, was tied on the head of defendant No.1. Palu Ram DW6 has also fully supported the case of defendant No.1 about his adoption by Tohfa Bai.
Parkash has deposed that her son Parkash was given in adoption to Smt.
SACHIN MEHTA 2016.06.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
RSA-488-2014
-6-
Tohfa Bai when he was six years of age. She deposed regarding the adoption ceremonies and thumb marking the adoption deed. Adoption deed dated 26.05.1995 was duly proved. This adoption deed also reflect the Will of Tohfa Bai, who specifically mention in it that after her death, her entire property will devolve on defendant No.1.
this appeal, which has no merits.
Dismissed.
May 26, 2016.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE
Sachin M.
SACHIN MEHTA 2016.06.09 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting the plaintiffs' claim to title based on a suspicious Will.
Whether the adoption of the respondent as the child of the testatrix was validly established to defeat the plaintiffs' claim.
Whether substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal.
Mange Ram and others
Parkash and others
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
