Plaintiffs challenged two Wills executed by a deceased issueless man in favour of defendants, claiming ancestral property incapacity and suspicious circumstances. Courts below upheld the later registered Will proved by attesting witness; the High Court dismissed the second appeal.
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.
1
RSA-541-2019 (O&M)
[122] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH
RSA-541 - 2019 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 02.12.2024
Brij Moh a n and another …Appellants
versus
Vineet a n d others ….Respondents
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain
Present : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the appellants (through V .C.).
Pankaj Jain, J.
[2] For convenience, parties a r e hereinafter referred to by t h eir original positions i.e. appellants as plaintiffs and respondents as defendan t s. [3] Plaintiffs filed suit, seeking decree of declaration, challen g ing Wills da t ed 21.11.1995 and 13.06.199 7 executed by Inder Sain so n of Munshi R am in favour of the defendants.
[4] Plaintiffs claimed that Inder Sain, who was their paternal u n cle during hi s life-time declared that after his death, his property shall be equ a lly divided b etween families of his brother s namely Moti Ram and Nand L al. However , defendants manipulated Inder Sain and got whole of his prop e rty bequeath e d in their favour. The Wills a re being challenged, claiming t hat the prope r ty in hands of Inder Sain was a ncestral. He was not in positio n to understa n d his good or bad, prior to his d e ath owing to old age.
[5] Suit was contested by the d e fendant Nos.1 to 5 by filing j o int RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.16 18:28 written s t atement. It was claimed that I n der Sain died issueless. His w ife I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2
RSA-541-2019 (O&M)
pre-dece a sed him. During is life-ti m e Inder Sain was residing w ith defendan t s. He was being looked after b y defendant Nos.1 & 2. Inder S ain executed valid registered Will dated 1 3 .06.1997 in favour of defen d ant Nos.1 & 2 and was hale and hearty till hi s death.
2. Whether the plaintiff i s not in possession of even an i n ch of land? OPD
3. Whether the suit of t h e plaintiff is highly time barr e d? OPD
4. Whether the proper C o urt fee has not been paid? OP D
5. Relief. ”
[7] Will dated 21.11.1995 ca m e on record as Exhibit P-3. W ill dated 13. 0 6.1997 is Exhibit P-4/Ex.D11. Subject matter of both the Wil l s is the same property i.e. suit property. In d er Sain cancelled his earlier W ill dated 21. 1 1.1995 vide subsequent Will d a ted 13.06.1997.
[8] Learned Trial Court found that Will dated 13.06.1997 w a s a registere d Will, which was proved by e x amining attesting witness na m ely Ram Sin g h. No suspicious circumsta n ce could be pointed out by the plaintiffs that can cloud Will dated 13.0 6 .1997 with suspicion. Resulta n tly, learned T r ial Court dismissed the suit file d by the plaintiffs. [9] Learned Lower Appellate C ourt has affirmed the afore s aid findings r ecorded by the learned Trial Co u rt.
[10] Counsel for the appellant s while assailing the impug n ed judgment s and decrees passed by the C o urts below submits that the Co u rts RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.16 18:28I attest to the accuracy and below er r ed in ignoring the fact that the p roperty in the hands of Inder S ain integrity of this document
3
RSA-541-2019 (O&M)
was ance s tral property and thus, he had no right to bequeath the same by way of W ill. The argument raised is mis c onceived. [11] From the records, it is disc e rnible that Munshi Ram had t h ree sons na m ely Moti Ram, Inder Sain and Nand Lal. LRs of Nand Lal are fighting q ua estate left by Inder Sain ag a inst the LRs of Moti Ram. I n der Sain die d issueless. Even if Inder Sain i nherited land in question from his father M u nshi Ram, he having died issue l ess became absolute owner the r eof and the s u it property in the hands of In d er Sain lost its character of b e ing ancestral qua his collaterals. Thus, the p roperty in hands of Inder Sain w as his self a c quired property. He had ever y right to alienate the same in a ny manner he wished. So far as Will dated 13.06.1997 is concerned, the s a me stands pr o ved in accordance with law, b y examining attesting witness, w ho proved e xecution of the same in ter m s of Section 63 of the In d ian Successi o n Act. Apart from bald asserti o ns with respect to mental healt h of Inder Sai n , no concrete plea has been ra i sed by the plaintiffs that can at t ain the chara c ter of suspicious circumstance s urrounding the WILL. [12] In view of the above, this C ourt finds no merit in the pre s ent appeal, a s pure findings of facts have be e n recorded by the Courts belo w by appreciat i ng whole evidence threadbare. [13] Resultantly, the present appeal is ordered to be dismissed . [14] All pending miscellaneou s application(s), if any, st a nds disposed o ff .
(Pankaj Jain) Judge
‘R. Sharma’
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
02.12.20 2 4
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.16 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Wills of Inder Sain were validly executed given claims of ancestral property, incapacity, and suspicious circumstances.
Whether property inherited by an issueless heir remained ancestral vis-à-vis his collaterals.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Brij Mohan and another
Vineet and others
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
