Dismissed

Paramjit Singh through Lrs Amir Kaur and Ors. v. Karamjit Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2018RSA/1924/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal concerning succession, the appellant challenged the affirmation of the lower courts' decision rejecting an unregistered Will. The appellant argued execution was unproven due to scarce attesting witness testimony and lack of scribal evidence. The court held one attesting witness suffices under Section 68 and found the evidence compelled a conclusion that the Will was vali

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

Paramjit Singh through Lrs Amir Kaur and… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Regul ar Second Appeal No. 1924 of 2016 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 23. 05. 2018

¶3

Par amj i t Si ngh ( si nce deceased) r epr esent ed t hr ough hi s LRs

¶4

…. . Appel l ant

¶5

ver sus

¶6

Kar amj i t Si ngh and anot her

¶7

CORAM: - HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE AMI T RAWAL

¶8

Pr esent : Mr . Mal keet Si ngh, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant

¶9

AMI T RAWAL, J. ( Or al ) :

¶10

Appel l ant - def endant No. 1 i s i n r egul ar second appeal agai nst t he j udgment s and decr ees of t he Cour t s bel ow wher eby t he sui t of t he r espondent - pl ai nt i f f f or decl ar at i on t o t he ef f ect t hat t he appel l ant / def endant had no r i ght or i nt er est i n t he pr oper t y l ef t by Sampur an Kaur wi t h consequent i al r el i ef of i nj unct i on has been decr eed and af f i r med by t he l ower appel l at e Cour t .

¶11

Mr . Mal keet Si ngh, t he l ear ned counsel appear i ng on behal f of t he appel l ant / def endant , submi t t ed t hat t he sui t was f i l ed by t he r espondent - pl ai nt i f f by pr opoundi ng an unr egi st er ed Wi l l execut ed by Sampur an Kaur i n r espect of l and measur i ng 1 Kanal – 10 Mar l as. The par t i es t o t he l i s ar e none el se but t he br ot her s and si st er . The def endant st at ed t hat Sampur an Kaur di d not execut e any wi l l and, t her ef or e, her demi se was t o be t r eat ed as i nt est at e and t he pr oper t y t hen devol ved upon t he l egal hei r s by way of nat ur al successi on. Lear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant - def endant f ur t her submi t t ed t hat t he j udgment s and decr ees of t he Cour t s bel ow ar e not sust ai nabl e f or one of t he at t est i ng wi t nesses, Har bant Si ngh, was not suf f i ci ent t o pr ove t he execut i on of t he Wi l l

¶12

Parkash Chand 2018.07.02 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

RSA- 1924- 2016

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

as t he Wi l l was an unr egi st er ed document . No scr i be was exami ned nor he knew about t he scr i be. I n t he cr oss- exami nat i on, i t was admi t t ed t hat si gnat ur es on t he Wi l l except on t he l ast page wer e not appended. Al l t hese f act or s show t hat t he Wi l l was shr ouded by suspi ci ous ci r cumst ances and, t her ef or e, was l i abl e t o be di scar ded.

¶16

I have hear d l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant and am of t he vi ew t hat t he appel l ant / def endant has mi ser abl y f ai l ed t o di schar ge t he onus by compar i ng t he t humb- i mpr essi on of Sampur an Kaur f r om t he admi t t ed document s. I t i s not necessar y t hat bot h t he at t est i ng wi t nesses have t o be exami ned. I t i s onl y one wi t ness, as per Sect i on 68 of t he I ndi an Evi dence Act , 1872, t hat i s suf f i ci ent . The wi t ness af or ement i oned had been r el i abl e and consi st ent i n exami nat i on and cr oss- exami nat i on. The t enor and mode of t he cr oss- exami nat i on woul d r at her r eveal t hat Sampur an Kaur had act ual l y execut ed t he Wi l l i n f avour of t he r espondent / pl ai nt i f f . Al l t hese f act or s have been cor r ect l y appr eci at ed by t he Cour t s bel ow i n f avour of r espondent / pl ai nt i f f . The ar gument s of t he l ear ned counsel ar e not abl e t o br i ng t he case wi t hi n t he r eal m of per ver si t y t o enabl e me t o f or m a di f f er ent opi ni on t han t he one ar r i ved at by t he Cour t s bel ow. No gr ound f or i nt er f er ence i s made out .

¶17

4. Di smi ssed.

¶18

1. 2018 par kash

¶19

( AMI T RAWAL) JUDGE

¶20

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶21

Parkash Chand 2018.07.02 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Paramjit Singh through Lrs Amir Kaur and Ors. v. Karamjit Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh through Lrs Amir Kaur and Ors. v. Karamjit Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Parkash Vs Surinder Kumar & Ors.

Virender Singh and Ors. Vs Kanwar Singh and Ors.

Indro Vs Shoe Lal Now Deceased Thru Lrs Sharda and Ors.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Jagtar Singh

Kuldeep Singh & Ors. Vs Ranbir Singh & Ors.

Shekhar Jain & Another Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.Etc.