Dismissed

Surender Kumar and Ors. v. Rishi Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2018RSA/6441/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the Court examined whether the appellants proved necessary relationships to challenge a Will concerning ancestral property. Relying on Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held non-relative witnesses were insufficient to establish kinship, affirming the lower courts' dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed as Plaintiffs failed to establish relationship between Parsanni Devi and Lila Devi.

Surender Kumar and Ors. Vs Rishi Ram and… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.6441 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.6441 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.17.12.2018

¶5

Surender Kumar and others

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

¶8

Rishi Ram and others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

-.-

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶13

C.M. No.16895-C of 2016

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 40 days

¶15

in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶16

Application is allowed.

¶17

RSA No.6441 of 2016

¶18

The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful in asserting right in the suit claiming declaration by laying challenge to the Will dated 30.12.1969 of Phulla having bequeathed the property in favour of the defendants. It was alleged that Dila Ram was an agriculturist by profession. He had two sons namely Phulla and Inderaj. Phulla was blessed with daughter namely Parsanni Devi. After marriage of Parsanni Devi, one female child namely Lila Devi was born out from the womb of Parsanni Devi and her husband. Lila Devi was married with one Om Parkash and blessed with six children, out of which plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are sons of Lila Devi and plaintiffs No.4 to 6 are the married daughters. Defendants played fraud upon

¶19

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA No.6441 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

¶21

Phulla while procuring the Will in order to grab the suit land as the same was ancestral property inherited by him from his father Dila Ram. Phulla died on 25.12.1970 and the mutation was also managed by the defendants. Mother of plaintiffs died six months before filing of the suit, therefore, cause of action accrued to lay the claim.

¶22

The aforementioned suit was opposed by the defendants

¶23

and stated that Phulla was the sole surviving owner of property and was competent to execute the Will. Relationship of Lila Devi with Prasanni Devi being daughter of Phulla Ram was emphatically denied.

¶24

Both the Courts below did not agree with the appellantplaintiffs while dismissing the suit.

¶25

Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in order to establish that Lila Devi was related to Parsanni Devi and Parsanni Devi to Phulla, had examined three witnesses namely Shiv Dutt, Birbhan and Randhir Singh, therefore, there was compliance of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶26

I am afraid aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act envisages examination of the close of relatives of persons to establish the relationship. Concededly aforementioned witnesses are not relatives. Plaintiffs miserably failed to prove that Phulla was having a daughter Parsanni Devi and Parsanni Devi related to Lila Devi. In such circumstances, they could not seek the claim in the suit property, which was bequeathed in favour of the defendants on the basis of the

¶27

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA No.6441 of 2016 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

registered Will dated 30.12.1969 and mutation No.378 dated 21.03.1973 was also sanctioned on the basis of the same.

¶31

In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact and law arrived at by the Courts below, 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.

¶32

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 17, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No

¶33

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.20 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surender Kumar and Ors. v. Rishi Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar and Ors. v. Rishi Ram and Ors.

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

Amar Singh and Ors. Vs Badami and Ors.

Prem Chand Mehta Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Vs Karam Singh & Anr.

Tarlochan Singh Vs Amritpal Singh & Anr.

Mahavir Singh Vs Joginder Kaur & Ors.

Nasib Singh & Ors. Vs Sandeep & Ors.