Rulda Singh & Ors. Vs Ran Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rulda Singh & Ors. Vs Ran Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside and judgment of the trial Court restored to its original number; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the registered Will dated 19.10.1978 allegedly executed by Sh. Raunqui in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 was genuine or fabricated, as alleged by plaintiff Sh. Ran Singh in his suit for possession. +1 more

Court's answer

The Will being registered, and the plaintiff having led no evidence to prove that the Will was never executed or that Sh. Raunqui never thumb-marked it, the allegation of fabrication remained unproved.

Ratio / Principle

The registered Will contains a note recording that Sh. Raunqui's left hand was damaged due to diabetes, which is why he appended his right thumb impression; this answers the First Appellate Court's first ground of doubt.

Key takeaways

On the earlier sale deed in favour of his daughter-in-law Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Sh. Raunqui likewise appended his right-hand thumb impression, corroborating that use of the right thumb impression was his practice.ratio¶43
The first reason given by the First Appellate Court to doubt the correctness of the Will is erroneous.ratio¶44
The second ground also fails: evidence showed Sh. Ran Singh resided separately and never took interest in caring for Sh. Raunqui, explaining the absence of any reference to him in the Will.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (defendants as appellants) — Punjab & Haryana HC, 08.05.2025, Anil Kshetarpal J. Dispute over inheritance of property of Sh. Raunqui (d. 27.07.1979), who had six sons (one, Dharma, predeceased him), had sold property to daughter-in-law Smt. Rajinder Kaur by sale deed of 1977, and executed a registered Will dated 19.10.1978 in favour of four sons (Rulda Singh, Bhag Singh, Sarban Singh, Karnail Singh). Plaintiff Ran Singh sued for possession alleging fabrication of the Will; the Will was proved through attesting witness DW-3 Amrik Singh and scribe DW-2 Karamjit Singh; the trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed it on two grounds: (i) the testator affixed his right thumb impression though males normally use the left, and (ii) the Will made no reference to Ran Singh. The High Court held both grounds unsustainable: the Will itself carried a note that the testator's left hand was damaged by diabetes, hence the right thumb impression — consistent with the right-hand thumb impression on his earlier sale deed; and Ran Singh had lived separately and never cared for the testator, besides which the plaintiff led no evidence to show the Will was never executed or thumb-marked. Appeal allowed; First Appellate Court judgment set aside; trial Court judgment restored.

RSA-1322-1992 (O&M)

-1-

143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-1322-1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.05.2025

RULDA SINGH & ORS.

..Appellants

Versus

RAN SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the appellants.

None for LRs of respondent No.1.

Mr. Nishan Singh Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.2(i) and (ii).

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

CM-11525 & 11526-C-2024

For the reasons stated in the applications which are supported by the affidavit, the applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased late Sh. Rulda Singh (appellant No.1), Sh. Bhag Singh (appellant No.2), Sh. Karnail Singh (appellant No.3) and Sh. Ran Singh (respondent No.1), are allowed, subject to all the just exceptions.

The amended memo of parties is taken on record.

CMs stand disposed of.

MOHD AYUB 2025.05.13 14:09

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-1322-1992 (O&M) -2-

Main case

Despite publication of notice in the newspaper, legal representatives of contesting respondent No.1 have not come forward to contest the case.

The defendants assail the correctness of First Appellate Court’s judgment, which in turn has reversed that of the trial Court. The dispute is with regard to the inheritance of property left behind by Sh. Raunqui, who died on 27.07.1979.

The following genealogy illustrates the relationship of the

parties:-

Mangta

Raunqui

Ran Singh Rulda Singh Bhag Singh Sarban Singh Karnail Singh Dharma

Rajinder Kaur Rattni

Sh. Raunqui had six sons out of whom Sh. Dharma predeceased him.

Previously, he also executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Rajinder Kaur wife of Sh. Karnail Singh on 28.03.1977, whereas, he executed a registered will on 19.10.1978 in favour of his four sons namely Sh. Rulda Singh, Sh. Bhag Singh, Sarban Singh and Sh. Karnail Singh.

The plaintiff Sh. Ran Singh filed suit for possession claiming that defendants No.1 to 4 have fabricated the Will dated 19.10.1978. The defendants contested the suit claiming that Sh. Raunqui executed a registered Will in their favour as the plaintiff never took care of Sh. Raunqui. The will was proved by examining DW-3 Sh. Amrik Singh, attesting witness and

MOHD AYUB 2025.05.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-1322-1992 (O&M)

-3-

DW-2 Sh. Karamjit Singh, scribe. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, which in appeal was reversed by the First Appellate Court on following two grounds:-

i. Sh. Raunqui appended his right thumb impression, whereas, normally male member append his left thumb impression.

ii. In the Will Sh. Raunqui did not refer to Sh. Ran Singh.

This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

A perusal of the registered Will proves that there is a note in the Will, wherein, it has been stated that Sh. Raunqui’s left hand is damaged due to diabetes, hence, he has appended his right thumb impression.

Moreover, when Sh. Raunqui executed sale deed dated 26.03.1977, in favour of Smt. Rajinder Kaur, his daughter-in-law, he also appended his right hand thumb impression.

Thus, the first reason given by the First Appellate Court to doubt the correctness of the Will is erroneous.

Similarly, the second reason also lacks substance because it has come in evidence that Sh. Ran Singh started residing separately and he never took any interest in taking care of Sh. Raunqui. Moreover, the Will is a registered Will. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that the Will was never executed by Sh. Raunqui. No effort has been made to prove that Sh. Raunqui never thumb marked the Will.

MOHD AYUB 2025.05.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-1322-1992 (O&M) -4-

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the First

Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored to its original number.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

May 08^th , 2025 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) Ayub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

MOHD AYUB 2025.05.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.