Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Kaur vs Bachittar Singh And Ors on 1 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115486
104. 2023:PHHC:115486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4272-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.09.2023
Amritpal Kaur .... Appellant
Versus
Bachittar Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
----
GURBIR SINGH, J.
CM-11390-C-2018
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act
is for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the present appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Delay
of 52 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA-4272-2018
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree dated 10.10.2017 passed by learned District Judge, Mansa vide which
the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree
dated 17.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Mansa, in a suit seeking mandatory injunction, was dismissed with costs.
2. Brief facts as culled out from the case are that the plaintiff is
adopted daughter of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased). She was adopted
during her childhood in the presence of relatives and respectables as per rites
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115486
RSA-4272-2018 (O&M) -2-
and rituals. She had been resided with Mukhtiar Singh as his daughter. She
was brought up by Mukhtiar Singh and married by him also. Mukhtiar Singh
had bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Mansa.
Mukhtiar Singh died on 22.03.2011 and as per plaintiff, he executed an
unregistered Will dated 20.02.2011 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant
No.3-Karam Singh, respondent No.3 herein. After the death of Mukhtiar
Singh, she is the only legal heir to inherit his estate. The plaintiff is entitled
to recover a sum of Rs.2,07,434/- along with interest which defendant No.1-
Bachittar Singh, respondent No.1 herein, withdrew from the Bank after
misstating the facts and got issued succession certificate dated 20.07.2012.
On the basis of evidence led on the file, the learned trial Court came to the
conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was the adopted daughter
of Mukhtiar Singh. She also failed to prove that Mukhtiar Singh executed
Will dated 20.02.2011 (Ex.PX). The plaintiff was required to file suit for
recovery against defendant No.1-Bachittar Singh. The suit of the plaintiff
was dismissed. The appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by
the learned Appellate Court upholding the judgment of the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that
Mukhtiar Singh used to call the appellant-plaintiff as his daughter and she
used to call and treat him as her father. All the relatives and villagers also
used to treat them as daughter and father. PW3-Hari Singh, who is brother-
in-law of Mukhtiar Singh, has also corroborated the version of the plaintiff.
Learned court below has wrongly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove
that she is adopted daughter of Mukhtiar Singh. PW4-Prem Kumar, an
attesting witness of the Will, has duly proved the Will. On the basis of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115486
RSA-4272-2018 (O&M) -3-
Will, the plaintiff and defendant No.3-Karam Singh are entitled to inherit the
estate of the deceased. Defendant No.1 has got issued succession certificate
by misstating facts. Defendant No.1 is class-II heir of Mukhtiar Singh, so he
is not entitled to inherit the estate of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased).
4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
and have gone through the file.
5. No evidence has been led by the appellant-plaintiff about
ceremonies performed at the time of adoption. The learned trial Court
appreciated the evidence in its true letter and spirit. It was found that the
plaintiff failed to tell the name of her maternal grandparents. She could not
tell the date and month of death of Smt. Surjit Kaur, her adopting mother.
There is a contradiction in the statement of the plaintiff and brother of Surjit
Kaur regarding the date of her death. The plaintiff studied in the school but
she failed to produce the school record to show the name of the parents
written in the school record. No document regarding adoption was proved on
the file, though PW3 stated that the adoption of plaintiff was put down in
writing and the document was got registered. The learned trial Court found
that in the Will (Ex.PX), the relationship of plaintiff with Mukhtiar Singh is
not mentioned. Mukhtiar Singh was a literate person and freedom fighter,
who used to put his signatures on documents, but it was not acceptable why
Mukhtiar Singh put his thumb-impression on the Will. Defendant No.1 has
already obtained succession certificate and the order passed in that
succession certificate is judgment in rem and binding on the parties.
Moreover, the plaintiff has not challenged the said succession certificate.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115486
RSA-4272-2018 (O&M) -4-
6. The learned courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and
there is no misreading of the evidence. No question of law is involved in this
appeal much less substantial question of law. The appeal is without merit and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
September 01, 2023
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115486
4 of 4
