Dismissed

Kashmir Kaur D/O Fauja, W/O Mukhtar Singh B/C Sikh, v. Jangir Kaur D/O Fauja Singh, W/O Santok Singh, B/C Sikh

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2022CW/12683/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC for summoning a doctor. The court held the doctor's certificate regarding a period after the will's execution was irrelevant to decide the testator's fitness of mind at the time of execution.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there was no force in it after the High Court found the submission regarding the medical witness irrelevant.

Kashmir Kaur D/O Fauja, W/O Mukhtar Singh B/C Sikh, Vs… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12683/2019

¶3

Kashmir Kaur D/o Fauja Singh, W/o Mukhtar Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Bamanwadi, Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner-Defendant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jangir Kaur D/o Fauja Singh, W/o Santok Singh,

¶7

Veero Bai @ Veer Kaur D/o Fauja Singh W/o Mahendra Singh,

¶8

All resident of Village Bamanwadi, Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan Presently Residing In Sikari, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents-Plaintiffs

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kunal Kant Rawat, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶12

Order

¶13

02/09/2022

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant challenging the order dated 28.05.2019, whereby the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitionerdefendant under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC for summoning of witness -Dr.Suresh Mittal on their behalf.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Kunal Kant Rawat submitted that the Court below has committed illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and in order to prove the fit state of mind of executor of Will i.e. father of the petitioner, it was necessary to produce the witness-Doctor, who could certify the fit state of mind of the father of the petitioner, at the time of executing of the Will.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-12683/2019]

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner was not in the fit state of mind to execute the Will but because of his old age, he was taken to different Hospital for his treatment and his condition was feeble and as such, it was necessary for the petitioner to prove that the father of the petitioner was in full conscious and fit condition, executed the Will and same could not have been doubted for any reason by any of the party.

¶19

Learned counsel submitted that father of the petitioner was treated at different Hospital, however, the certificate which was given by the Dr.Suresh Mittal—witness which the petitioner wanted to produce had treated the petitioner’s father for CAD OLD M.I. CHF and he was admitted also in the Hospital on 16.05.2003 and he died on 21.05.2003.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is only on the date of execution of Will, the state of mind of the executant of the Will could be inferred even prior or subsequent state of mind was also relevant consideration for deciding the state of mind of the executant of the Will.

¶21

Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below has wrongly come to conclusion that only because the Will was executed on 12.12.2002 and the Doctor who had treated the petitioner’s father subsequently and as such, it had no relevance.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that the adequate opportunity was required to be afforded to the petitioner for proving her case before the Court below and by denying such right, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-12683/2019]

¶26

This Court finds that the Court below while recording evidence of the petitioner-defendant found that application under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC came to be filed. This Court finds that the Court below has taken into consideration the relevant facts/dates about producing the said witness for the purpose of proving the state of mind of the executant of the Will.

¶27

This Court finds that undisputedly, the alleged Will was executed on 12.12.2002 and the Doctor, who had treated father of the petitioner, was only concerned with the period between 16.05.2003 to 21.05.2003 and as such, subsequent admission of the father of the petitioner in the Hospital, was not found to be relevant consideration for deciding the state of mind of father of the petitioner, who had executed the Will on 12.12.2002.

¶28

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that prior as well as later state of mind of executant of Will, has to be taken into account for reaching to the conclusion that person was absolutely fit and normal to execute the Will, suffice it to say by this Court that the parties who allege that the state of mind of executant of Will was not normal or he/she was not conscious enough to make a right decision to execute the Will, the relevant consideration has to be seen by the Court below as whether, the time when the alleged Will was executed, the person was in the fit state of mind or not and as such, this Court finds that submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted.

¶29

This Court finds that the Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 29.05.2019.

¶30

Resultantly, this Court finds no force in the present writ petition and as such, same is dismissed.

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CW-12683/2019]

¶33

The aforesaid findings/observations made will not in any way prejudice any of the party in respect of their claim before the Civil Court.

¶34

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶35

Himanshu Soni/62

Kashmir Kaur D/O Fauja, W/O Mukhtar Singh B/C Sikh, v. Jangir Kaur D/O Fauja Singh, W/O Santok Singh, B/C Sikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir Kaur D/O Fauja, W/O Mukhtar Singh B/C Sikh, v. Jangir Kaur D/O Fauja Singh, W/O Santok Singh, B/C Sikh

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

Kishan Lal Andors Vs Smt Geeta Bai Andanr

Kastur Chand Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs Komal and Ors.

Siddharth Arora Vs the Addi Civil Judge J D Andors

M/S Vaishnav Building Material Vs R F C

Syed Shahid Ali Vs State of Raj and Anr.