Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh And Anr vs Baldev Kaur And Ors on 20 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
111 RSA-1268-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.01.2025
GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANR .... Appellants
VERSUS
BALDEV KAUR AND ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-
appellants challenging the judgments and decrees dated 12.08.2015 and
11.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
respectively.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated
29.09.2006 passed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Bathinda regarding
the inheritance of Raghbir Singh son of Sarban Singh whereby the properties
of Raghbir Singh were inherited equally by his legal heirs on the basis of
natural succession being illegal, null and void and by ignoring the
unregistered Will dated 04.07.2004 executed by Raghbir Singh in favour of
the plaintiff-appellants and Gurdeep Singh i.e. defendant-respondent No.2.
Order dated 13.03.2007 passed by the Collector, Bathinda was also
challenged vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants was
111 RSA-1268-2020 (O&M) -2-
dismissed upholding the order dated 29.09.2006. Challenge was also laid to
the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot vide
which the revision petition was dismissed. An unregistered Will dated
04.07.2004 was set up by the plaintiff-appellants which was alleged to have
been executed by Raghbir Singh in favour of his three sons i.e. the plaintiff-
appellants herein and defendant-respondent No.2 - Gurdeep Singh - qua his
movable and immovable properties. It was the case set up that pleased with
the services rendered by his sons, Raghbir Singh had executed an
unregistered Will dated 04.07.2004 in their favour. It was further the case
that Raghbir Singh during his lifetime had given enough dowry articles to
defendant-respondents No.3 and 4 (daughters) equal to their shares in the
properties at the time of their marriage and they had accordingly
relinquished their shares in the properties.
3. The suit was contested by defendant-respondent No.1 i.e. wife
of Raghbir Singh and his third son, namely, Gurdeep Singh (defendant-
respondent No.2) raising various preliminary objections. It was the stand
taken that the unregistered Will dated 04.07.2004 was a fabricated
document. It was further the stand taken that the mutation had rightly been
sanctioned as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The daughters i.e.
defendant-respondents No.3 and 4 also filed their separate written statement
and took similar pleas.
4. Replication was filed denying the contents of the written
statements and reiterating those of the plaint.
111 RSA-1268-2020 (O&M) -3-
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the Will dated 04.07.2004 executed by
Raghbir Singh is legal and valid ? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiffs are
entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
4. Relief.
6. Vide judgment and decree dated 12.08.2015 the suit was
dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was
preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which appeal was also dismissed by the
First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019. Hence,
the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellants.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that
the unregistered Will stood duly proved inasmuch as the Scribe of the Will
i.e. Harmandeep Singh, Advocate had stepped into the witness box as PW-3
and one of the attesting witnesses i.e. Harjinder Singh had also stepped into
the witness box as PW-2. It is further the contention that the daughters
(defendant-respondents No.3 and 4) had been given sufficient amount at the
time of their marriage and that the wife (defendant-respondent No.1) owned
other properties. It is further the contention that except for the handwriting
expert no other witness was examined, nor any evidence was led by the
defendant-respondents to show that the Will was not a validly executed Will.
111 RSA-1268-2020 (O&M) -4-
8. Heard.
9. In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that the
unregistered Will dated 04.07.2004 was shrouded by suspicious
circumstances. The defendant-respondents in their evidence have led the
evidence of handwriting expert who specifically stated that the thumb
impression had been transposed on the document, to which no evidence was
led to the contrary. Both the Courts also observed that there was irregular
spacing between the lines of the Will. The most important aspect was that
the unregistered Will which was set up by the plaintiff-appellants was to be
proved by way of cogent evidence to the effect that the same had been read
over and explained to the Testator who was an illiterate person as is apparent
from the unregistered Will wherein his thumb impression has been
appended. Both the Scribe as well as the attesting witnesses admitted in their
cross-examination that the contents of the Will had not been read over and
explained to the Testator. In such a case it cannot be believed that the
unregistered Will was executed by the Testator knowingly and willingly. It
is trite that the burden to prove due execution of the Will is always on the
propounder. It is incumbent on the propounder of the Will to prove that the
Testator had signed a Will and had put his signatures out of his free will and
that the testator was possessed of sound disposition of mind and understood
the contents of the Will. On a query by the Court to the counsel for the
plaintiff-appellants as to whether he could point out to any evidence on the
record to suggest that the unregistered Will was read over and the contents
111 RSA-1268-2020 (O&M) -5-
explained and understood by the Testator, learned counsel for the plaintiff-
appellants states that there is no such evidence.
10. In view of the glaring facts, no fault can be found with the
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts concerned. No question of
law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case
which requires determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any
merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
20.01.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
