Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sirjit Kaur And Ors vs Surinder Singh And Ors on 7 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063436
RSA No.1223 of 2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1223 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Order:07.05.2024
Sirjit Kaur and others
.Appellants
Versus
Surinder Singh and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiffs assail the correctness
of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while
dismissing their suit for grant of decree of declaration that they along with
defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5 are owners in possession of 1/7th share each in the
land measuring 73 kanals 14 marlas and 3 sarsai. In substance, the plaintiffs
assail the correctness of registered Will executed by their husband/father in
favour of his three sons and one grand son.
2. In order to understand the inter-se relationship between the
parties, a small pedigree table is drawn as under:-
Amar Singh
|
Pargan Singh
|
Jagir Kaur---|
| |---Sirjit Kaur (Plaintiff No.1)
| |
| |-----------------------
---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
| | | | | |
Surinder Ranbir Randhir Balwinder Rawinder Resham
Singh Singh Singh Kaur Singh Chall Kaur
(Def.No.1) (Def.No.2) (Def.No.3) (Def.No.5) (Plaintiff No.2) (Plaintiff No.3)
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063436
3. This suit was filed by Smt. Sirjit Kaur, Rawinder Singh Chall,
and Smt. Resham Kaur, who are residing in United Kingdom(UK). They
claim that the registered Will dated 15.02.2006 is null, void, illegal and was
not executed with free will.
4. The defendants on the other hand, proved the Will by
examining DW3-Nachhater Singh, the attesting witness of the Will and Sh.
Bhupinder Pal Jhikka, the scribe.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellants has made the
following submissions:--
(1) The testator has not given any reasons for excluding the
plaintiffs from his succession.
(2) The testator was not of sound mind on the day of the
execution of the Will.
(3) Smt. Parminder Kaur, one of the attesting witness, was
aunt of wife of the one of beneficiary i.e. Sh. Ranbir
Singh.
(4) Sh. Nachhatar Singh is also interested witness as he was
cousin of the testator, namely, Sh. Pargan Singh.
6. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties
7. The learned counsel representing the appellant has produced
photocopy of the registered Will. It is evident that on the top of the page,
the photograph of Sh. Pargan Singh has been pasted. Sh. Pargan Singh has
appended his thumb impressions in the manner that half of the thumb
impression is on the photograph, whereas remaining half is on the paper on
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063436
which the Will is scribed. He has also thumb marked the Will at the bottom
where recitals of the Will came to an end. Sh. Pargan Singh has also signed
at the bottom of the page along with his thumb impression. At the time of
registration, Sh. Pargan Singh has twice signed the Will. The photograph of
the Sub-Registrar along with testator and the attesting witnesses is printed
on the back side of the Will.
8. The plaintiffs have led no evidence to prove that Sh. Pargan
Singh never thumb marked or signed the Will.
9. The first submission of the learned counsel representing the
appellant has no substance because the testator is not required to give
detailed reasons for excluding a natural heir. The Will is not akin to a
judgment which is supported by the detailed reasons which is subject to
judicious scrutiny by the Court. It is evident that the plaintiffs are residing
in UK, whereas the defendants are residing in India. The testator has
remained alive for more than 7 years after execution and registration of the
Will.
10. With regard to the second submission, it may be noted here that
the plaintiffs have led no medical evidence to prove that Sh. Pargan Singh
was not of sound mind on 15.02.2006. He appeared before the Sub-
Registrar to get the Will registered.
11. The next argument of the learned counsel representing the
appellant has no substance because Smt. Parminder Kaur is the Sarpanch of
the village. She has attested the Will. She may be aunt of wife of one of
the beneficiary, however, that cannot be the only ground to discard the
registered Will particularly when the Will has been executed in favour of as
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063436
many as four beneficiaries.
12. The last submission of the learned counsel representing the
appellants is not substantiated. Sh. Nachhater Singh was managing the land
of Sh. Pargan Singh. He was also attorney and cousin of Sh. Pargan Singh.
He is not the beneficiary of the Will.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
14. Dismissed.
15. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 07, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
4 of 4
