Surinder Singh Vs Darshan Singh

RSA-2787-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 RSA-2787-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.08.2025 Surinder Singh ... Appel l ant Versus Darshan Singh ... Respond e nt CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: M r . Akshay Chadha, Advocate fo r the appellant. *******

¶3

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶4

T h e plaintiff is the appellant b efore this Court challenging the concurrent fin d ing of fact rendered vide judg m ents and decrees dated 17.09. 2 022 and 16.05.202 5 passed by the learned trial C ourt and the learned 1^st Appellate Court respecti v ely whereby the suit for decla r ation that the plaintiff is own e r in possession of h alf share of industrial propert y measuring 126 sq. yards be a ring municipal No. B -XXI-1123/315/2 as shown re d in the site plan attached wit h the plaint, has bee n dismissed.

¶5

In brief, the facts are that plaintif fs and defendants are brothers, being sons of Gurde v Singh, who bequeathed his est a te of 776 sq. yards vide Will(s) and Transfer Deed( s ) from 13.04.2011 to 06.08.2014, in the following manner:-

¶6

(i) Will dated1 his pre-decease 3.04.2011 in favour of plaintiff d son PritamSingh i.e. grandson , defendant and Jagtar Singh so for776 sq. yards equally. n of
(ii) Transfer de sq.yards. ed dated 23.09.2011 in favouro f defendant-Darshan Singh for 250
(iii) Transfer de sq. yards. ed dated 26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff-Surinder Singh for 200
(iv) Will dated son of pre-dece each in favouro 16.08.2013, 200 sq. yards weret ased son of Gurdev Singh nam fplaintiffand defendant. ransferred in favour of Jagtar Si ely Pritam Singh and 126 sq.y ngh ards
(v) Transfer de be exclusive ow ed dated 06.08.2014 whereby th nerof 126 sq. yards. e defendant proclaimed himsel f to

¶7

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶8

RSA-2787-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶9

T h ereafter, Gurdev Singh died on 09.10.2014. So, the dispute is qua 126 sq. yards o u t of total 776 sq. yards. The c a se of the plaintiff is that he is o w ner of half share o f 126 sq. yards as per Will d a ted 16.08.2013 and the subseq u ent transfer deed d ated 06.08.2014 on the basis o f which the defendant is clai m ing himself to be e xclusive owner of 126 sq. ya r ds is obtained by coercion, u n due influence and m isrepresentation. Hence, the p r esent civil suit. 3. U p on notice of the suit, defe n dants appeared and filed wr i tten statement taki n g preliminary objections regar d ing maintainability, not comi n g to Court with cle a n hands and the suit is not pro p erly valued for the purpose of c ourt fee and jurisd i ction. On merits, it was state d that father of defendant na m ely Gurdev Singh h ad transferred 126 sq. yards p rior to his death in his favour v ide transfer deed d a ted 06.08.2014 in a sound dis p osing mind and therefore, no c a use of action arose in favour of the plaintiff.

¶10

O n the basis of pleadings, five iss u es were framed by the learned trial Court includin g the issue of relief. The appell a nt-plaintiff examined six witn e sses and tendered d ocuments Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On the other hand, respon d entdefendant exa m ined three witnesses.

¶11

O n appreciation of oral as well do c umentary evidence placed befo r e it, the learned tri a l Court dismissed the suit of t h e appellant-plaintiff, which fin d ing has also been up held by the learned 1^st Appell a te Court. Hence, the regular se c ond appeal.

¶12

L e arned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff submits that the appel l antplaintiff exami n ed as many as six witnesses, o ut of which four have consist e ntly deposed that f a ther of the plaintiff Gurdev Si n gh was mentally not fit since 2 014 and, therefore, the transfer deed dated 06.08.2014 is surrounded by suspicious

¶13

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶14

RSA-2787-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶15

circumstances and remaining two witnesses were witness of the Will d ated 16.08.2023, a c cording to which, 126 sq. y a rds were transferred in favou r of plaintiff and t h e defendant equally. Both the courts below have gravely err e d in appreciating that there was no reason for Gu r dev Singh to deviate from his last Will dated 16. 0 8.2013; that too, two months p r ior to his death. PW-1 to PW- 3 are real sisters of p laintiff and defendant, who ca t egorically deposed that their f a ther Gurdev Singh w as critically ill from 10.05.202 4 and was not in his full senses a s he was suffering fr om cancer, much less, they de n ied signatures of their father o n the transfer deed d ated 06.08.2014. The allege d transfer deed dated 06.08.2014 is bereft of any r eason as to why Gurdev Sing h deviated from his last Will d ated 16.08.2013. B o th the courts below have heavily relied upon another transfer d eed dated 19.08.20 1 4 to the extent that there existe d another transfer deed after tra n sfer deed 06.08.2014 was executed but the plaintif f did not raise any challenge qu a the said transfer deed, which is totally unsubstanti a ted.

¶16

H e ard.

¶17

A careful perusal of the record sh o ws that within a span of two y e ars, the executant- G urdev Singh executed five Will(s)/Transfer Deeds in favour o f his two sons and grandson, bequeathing his es t ate of 776 sq. yards in diff e rent proportions an d the last such transfer was Tra n sfer Deed dated 06.08.2014, w h ich became bone o f contention. Prior to that, W ill dated 16.08.2013 was exec u ted whereby 200 s q . yards were transferred in th e name of Jagtar Singh son of predeceased son o f Gurdev Singh namely Prit a m Singh and 126 sq. yards w ere transferred in t he name of plaintiff and defe n dant in equal shares. Thoug h the plaintiff is clai m ing his ownership qua half share in 126 sq. yards on the bas i s of Will dated 16.08.2013 but he did not imple a d Jagtar Singh as a party fo r the

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶19

RSA-2787-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶20

reasons best k n own to him. Admittedly, Gurde v Singh was residing with defendant before his deat h and all sisters, who deposed i n favour of plaintiff as PW-1 to P W- 3 are married and, therefore, mere depositio n by them that Gurdev Singh was mentally unfit from 10.05.2014 is not suffi c e, in the absence of any me d ical evidence prov e d on record in this regard. Furthermore, transfer deed d ated 06.08.2014 is a registered document but no off i cial witness was examined fro m the office of Sub- R egistrar (East), Ludhiana to d isprove the said deed. More o ver, another transf e r deed dated 19.08.2014 exec u ted in favour of Jagtar Sing h by Gurdev Singh was brought on record by th e defendant, though not pleade d in written statement to make out a case that the s a id deed was executed even afte r the Transfer Deed dated 06.08.2014 but the plaintiff did not challenge that deed. The Transfer Deed dated 06.08.20214 has been d uly proved by DW-3, the of f icial witness from S ub-Registrar Office (East), L u dhiana and DW-2 Kulwant Si n gh, being the attest i ng witness. Therefore, both th e Courts below have rightly held that the Transfer D e ed dated 06.08.2014 being late r in time, shall prevail over the W ill dated 16.08.20 1 3.

¶21

In view the above, this Court do e s not find any ground to inte r fere with the conc u rrent finding of fact rendered by both the learned Courts be l ow, much less, no s ubstantial question of law arise s for consideration. Resultantly , the instant regular s econd appeal is dismissed. 10. M i sc. application(s) pending, if an y , shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

August 19, 202 5	(A M	ARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE L)
Pankaj*	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶23

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Surinder Singh v. Darshan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. Darshan Singh

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

Shimla Rani Vs Shanta Rani

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam , Fatehabad and Another Vs Shyam Sunder

Harbans Singh Vs M/S Ganesh Dass Des Raj Commission Agents

Rupinder Singh Vs Saudagar Singh

Navneet Kaur Vs Sanjay Krishan Ahuja

Aniketa Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lorenzini Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and Another