Dismissed

Inder Singh v. Teja Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2018RSA/3659/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging a registered will created in favour of the appellants sisters, the High Court held that the challenge based on witness contradictions regarding the presence of beneficiaries was unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff cannot claim a 1/5th share in the suit land.

Inder Singh Vs Teja Singh and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.3659 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3659 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.04.12.2018

¶5

Inder Singh @ Joginder Singh

¶6

....Appellant

¶7

¶8

Teja Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Harpreet Singh Jakhal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

-.-

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶14

The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming declaration qua 1/5^th share in the suit land against his brothers by laying challenge to the Will dated 20.07.2005 executed by the father in favour of defendants No.1 and 2.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the defendants in order to prove the Will examined attesting witness DW1 Kashmir Singh and DW2 Gian Chand scribe. Though Kashmir Singh stated that both the beneficiaries were not present but the scribe in other words stated that beneficiaries were present. This was itself a suspicious circumstance to discard the Will and in the absence of the Will, property ought to have been devolved as per natural succession.

¶16

I am afraid aforementioned argument is not sustainable as registered Will has been proved through the testimony of Jumma Singh. One line here and there in the cross-examination would not make much difference as statements of both the witnesses have to be

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.07 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA No.3659 of 2016 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

seen together. Plaintiff had failed to establish the suspicious circumstance attempted to be raised in this Court. In the absence of any testamentary document, plaintiff cannot be granted 1/5^th share as claimed.

¶21

As an upshot of my finding, the concurrent finding of fact and law arrived at by both the Courts below cannot be said to be faulted with, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.

¶22

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 04, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶23

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.07 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Inder Singh v. Teja Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inder Singh v. Teja Singh and Ors.

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

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Malkiat Singh & Anr. Vs Sdo, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Chhaju Singh Vs Satyawan and Ors.

Atma Singh Vs Surinderpal Sood & Ors.

Hem Raj Garg Vs Punjab Relief Society and Anr.

Punjab Waqf Board Vs Naresh Khosla and Ors.