Balwinder Singh and Others Vs Jaswant Singh and Others

Appe l lants/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration claiming them to be owners in possess i on of suit lands (fully detailed i n Schedule (A) to (E) of the pl a int) and mortgage-in- p ossession over the land as det a iled in Schedule (F) to (H) o f the plaint having bee n inherited from Mohinder Si n gh on the basis of registered W ill dated 10.11.2010 a nd for restraining the defendan t s from interfering in the posses s ion of the appellants / plaintiffs or alienating the s u it land in any manner or in the alternative suit for possession of the p r operties on the grounds that appellants/plaintif f s inherited the estate of Mo h inder Singh, son of Bur Si n gh, resident of Bhagt a na Boharwala, Tehsil Dera Bab a Nanak, District Gurdaspur, Pu n jab on the basis of registered Will dated 10.11.2010 a n d that defendants No. 1 to 3 all e ged some other Will i n their favour. The Will execute d in favour of defendants No.1 t o 3 is illegal, null and void and ineffective, as the same was cancelled by Mohinder Singh vide registered Will dated 10.11.2010.

¶14

Muta t ion No.1046 is illegal, null and void. Defendants No.4 to 6 all e ged that they had pur c hased some land out of suit la n d from defendants No.1 to 3. The alienations, if any, are result of collusion and conspiracy and are not binding upo n the SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.19 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

rights of the a p pellants/plaintiffs. Appellants/ p laintiffs are in actual phy s ical possession over t h e suit land. Defendants threate n ed to encroach upon the suit l a nd; hence, the instant s uit.

¶16

Defe n dants No.1 contested the suit , whereas, defendants No.2 a n d 3 were proceeded a gainst ex parte. Defendant N o .1 denied execution of Will d a ted 10.11.2010 in fav o ur of plaintiffs and alleged that t he same is false, forged, fabric a ted, result of collusio n and conspiracy of the plainti ff s with defendant No.2, scribe and marginal witnesse s . Mohinder Singh was not com p etent to execute any Will. The suit property was anc e stral coparcenary property of joint Hindu family. Defendants has birthright in the s ame. Plaintiff in collusion wi t h defendant No.2, scribe and the witnesses have go t executed some other Will date d 14.07.2010 from Mohinder Si n gh, which was cance l led by Mohinder Singh vide W ill dated 03.09.2010 execute d in favour of defenda n ts No.1 to 3. After death of M o hinder Singh, defendants No.1 t o 3 inherited the estate on the basis of registered Will dated 03.09.2010 and prayed for dismissal of the s u it.

¶17

Defe n dants No.4 and 5 filed separ a te written statements alleging that they have purcha s ed 16 kanals 11 marlas of lan d from defendants No.1 and 3 v ide sale deed dated 28.03.2011 as they are co-sharers i n possession over land 16 kanal s 11 marlas out of sui t land. Defendants are bona fid e purchasers for value without any notice. Defendant No.6 also contested the suit claiming himself to be bona f ide purchaser for con s ideration without any notice. A s vide sale deed dated 03.09.2 0 10, he purchased thre e marlas of land from defendant s No.1 to 3. Replications were f iled denying the aver m ents of the written statement and reiterating the contents of the plaint.

¶18

SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.19 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

5. From the pleadings, following issued were framed:-

¶20

1 . Whether plaintiffs are entitled to t he relief of declaration as p rayed for? OPP

¶21

2 . Whether the plaintiffs are entitle d to consequential relief of p ermanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

¶22

3 . Whether the plaintiffs are entitle d to the alternative relief of p ossession as prayed for? OPP

¶23

4 . Whether the deceased Mohinder S ingh has executed any Will d ated 10.11.2010 in favour of the p l aintiffs? OPP

¶24

5 . Whether plaintiffs have got no lo c us standi to file the present s uit? OPD

¶25

6 . Whether the present suit is not m a intainable? OPD

¶26

7 . Whether the suit is bad for non-j o inder of necessary parties? O PD

¶27

8 . Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of C ourt fee and jurisdiction? OPD

¶28

9 . Relief.

¶29

In or d er to prove these issues, parties led their respective evidence.

¶30

After hearing arguments, learned C i vil Judge dismissed the suit. The appeal was filed. L earned Additional District Jud g e dismissed the appeal and up h eld the judgment of the learned Civil Judge.

¶31

Aggr i eved by the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts be l ow, present appeal ha s been filed on the grounds tha t the findings recorded by both the Courts below are not in consonance with the ple a dings and evidence on record and the judgments ar e based upon surmises and con j ectures. The learned Courts b e low has illegally ignored the registered Will dated 10.11.2010 executed in favou r of appellants/plaintif f s. The Will is duly registere d , so there is a presumption that testator was of sound disposing mind as no obj e ction was raised by the registe r ing authority regardin g mental condition of Mohinde r Singh at the time of executio n of

¶32

SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.19 17:56

¶33

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Will. The learned Courts below wrongly ignored the Will. Perusal of the paper book and impugned ju d gments clearly show that g u ardian of minors appellants P W3 Ranjeet Kaur has admitted in cross-examinatio n that Mohinder Singh was not in proper state of m i nd for about one month prior t o his death on 11.12.2010 and the Will propounded by the appellants/plaintiffs is o f 10.11.2010. The learned Courts below has record e d that during the period of five months immediately prior to d e ath of Mohinder Sing h , Mohinder Singh has execute d three registered Wills one afte r the other. First Will w as executed in favour of appell a nts/plaintiffs on 14.07.2010, w h ich was cancelled vi d e Will dated 03.09.2010 and subsequently, that Will was a lso cancelled vide thi r d registered Will on 10.11.2010 .

¶35

The learned Courts below has right l y came to the conclusion that this fact of getting m u ltiple inconsistent Wills execu t ed within a period of five mo n ths coupled with the s tatement of next friend of app e llant/plaintiff-Ranjeet Kaur pr o ves that during that p e riod, Mohinder Singh was of feeble mind and was not of st a ble mind. He has not spelled out the reasons for exe c uting one Will after the other a fter cancelling the ea r lier Will. Both the Courts b e low has appreciated the evid e nce correctly. No su b stantial question of law arise s for consideration of this C o urt. Considering that t here is no illegality or perversi t y in the findings recorded by b oth the Courts below , there is no reason to interfer e in the concurring judgments and decrees passed by Courts below, as such, finding n o merit in the present appeal.

¶36

10 Acco r dingly, the present appeal is di s missed and pending miscellan e ous application(s), if a n y, are also disposed of accordi n gly.

¶37

(VI R INDER AGGARWAL) 12.08.2025 JUDGE S. Pathania Whet h er reasoned / speaking? Yes / N o SAURAV PATHANIA2025.08.19 17:56 Whet h er reportable? Yes / N o

¶38

SAURAV PATHANIA2025.08.19 17:56 2025.08.19 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Balwinder Singh and Others v. Jaswant Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Singh and Others v. Jaswant Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gian Chand Vs M.C.

Smt.Leela Wati Vs Pritam Dass

M/S Sachna Zink Sulphate Vs Punjab Financial Corp.

Resham Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Balbir Singh etc.

Surinder Pal Verma and Another Vs Ravi Dutt