Kewal Singh And Ors vs Darshan Singh (Since Deceased) Through ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 20153 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kewal Singh And Ors vs Darshan Singh (Since Deceased) Through ... on 13 November, 2024

                  RSA-1280-2021
                           2021 (O&M)
                                                             -1-


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                  (118)                                            RSA-1280-2021 (O&M)
                                                                    Date of Decision:- 13.11.2024

                  Kewal Singh and Ors.
                                                                                  ......Appellants
                                                                                    Appellants


                                                       Versus


                  Darshan Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and Ors.

                                                                                  ......Respondent


                  CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
                                        ****

                  Present:        Mr. Nagar Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

                                                    ****

                  ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated

18.09.2014 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the suit of the

plaintiff/appellants was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the appellants

was also dismissed on 28.11.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that

both the Courts Courts below erred in law and did not appreciate the cogent

evidence brought on record. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are the sons of

one Surta Singh, who had four children, namely, Kewal Singh (son), Balbir

Singh (son), Jaswant Singh (pre-deceased (pre deceased son son), and Darshan Singh (son)..

Since Surta Singh died on 14.11.1996, the property should have to

RSA-1280-2021 2021 (O&M)

distribute equally upon all the sons. However, a Will dated 12.11.1996 was

propounded by defendants No.7 and 8, who are the grandsons of Surta

Singh and sons of Darshan Darshan Singh, whereby the entire property was given to

them, excluding the present plaintiffs-appellants.

plaintiffs appellants. It is further submitted that

the plaintiffs-appellants plaintiffs appellants have challenged the above said Will as false,

fabricated, and forged, and hence not binding on their rights. They also

contend that the mutation of the inheritance of Surta Singh's estate in the

favour of defendants No.7 and 8 was also illegal, null and void.

Learned counsel for the appellants fu further rther submitted that the

lower Courts ourts have wrongly found found that, since the plaintiffs did not present

any evidence to demonstrate that the thumb impression of Surta Sing Singh h was

fabricated or false, the Will Will should be considered under suspicious

circumstances, especially in cases where the property is bequeathed in the

favour of one legal heir to the exclusion of all other Class I legal heirs.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and

reviewed the record. The issue raised in the present suit is with regard to the

Will dated 12.11.1996 executed by deceased deceased-Surtaa Singh in favour of his

grandsons i.e. respondents No.7 and 8 in suspicious circumstances but

appellants fail to prove the suspicious circumstances, whereas the

respondents have duly proved the Will as per the provisions of Sections 68

and 699 of the Indian Evidence Act by getting the testimony of the marginal

witnesses and the scribe of the Will. Moreover, the said Will was duly

registered before the Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar, with photographs of the deceased Surta

Singh. Apart from oral assertions that the Will was not thumb thumb-marked marked by

RSA-1280-2021 2021 (O&M)

the Executor, no proof was provided. The plaintiffs have not claimed that

the land was coparcenary property, nor that the death of Surta Singh was

unusual, unnatural, or suspicious. Therefore, the validity of the Will has

been een rightly upheld by the lower Courts.

4. In light of the above, finding no merits in the present appeal,

the same is dismissed.

5. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ALOK JAIN) November 13, 13 2024 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No