High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Shri Amarjit Singh & another v. Shri Ravinder Singh & Ors - RSA-707-1983  RD-P&H 3168 (16 May 2006)
R.S.A..No.707 OF 1983
DATE OF DECISION : 19.4.2006
Shri Amarjit Singh & another
Shri Ravinder Singh & others
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for
respondents No.2,3,6 and 7.
The appellants by way of the present regular second appeal have assailed the judgment of the learned Addl.District Judge, Bathinda dated 9.11.1982.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that one Pritam Singh was the owner in possession of the suit land. Pritam Singh was having two sons by the name of Ravinder Singh and Rupinder Singh and one daughter Rupinder Kaur. Rupinder Singh had pre-deceased his father Pritam Singh and had left behind his widow Baltej Kaur. The present appellants Amarjit Singh and Charanjit Singh are the sons of Ravinder Singh who is also arrayed as respondent No.1 in the present appeal. In short, Amarjit Singh and Charanjit Singh are the grandsons of Pritam Singh who was the owner of the land. Pritam Singh during his life time is stated to have distributed his land equally amongst his son Ravinder Singh, daughter Rupinder Kaur and the widow of his son Baltej Kaur. The dispute is only regarding his own share for which he is alleged to have executed a Will dated 14.10.1968 during his life time.
The plaintiff-appellants had filed a suit for declaration claiming the share of Pritam Singh on the basis of this Will. The trial court had dismissed the suit of the appellants and the learned lower appellate court also had affirmed the findings in appeal. The plaintiff-appellants are, therefore, aggrieved by the judgments of the courts below.
The foremost argument raised by Mr. Sarwan Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants is that there was a valid Will which was not shrouded by any suspicious circumstance and that it had been duly proved by Bhura Singh PW2 who was the only sole surviving attesting witness to the Will. He further went on to submit that the Will was in favour of the grandsons and, therefore, the execution of Will in their favour was a very logical, natural and a credible action on the part of a grandfather.
Mr. J.R.Mittal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.2,3,6 and 7 submitted that the fact that the Will was executed on 14.10.1968 but was not registered up to 29.12.1969, after the death of Pritam Singh, was itself a factor which cast a shadow on the veracity and the genuineness of the Will. The Will itself is purported to have been thumb marked and signed. The thumb impressions could not be compared because they were superimposed but as far as the signatures are concerned there were two opinions of the handwriting experts and both were contradictory to each other. He further submitted that both the courts had recorded a concurrent finding on the factual aspect of the matter and there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and on this score alone the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel, I have come to the conclusion that the appeal does not deserve to succeed. The Will was executed on 14.10.1968 but was not registered till much after the death of Pritam Singh.
The signatures on the Will also do not tally and there is no explanation worth the name why it should have been got registered after his death and why not on the date when it was executed. The appellants were minors at the time of execution of the Will and it is apparent that it was the machinations of Rupinder Singh, their father, who was interested in grabbing the share of Pritam Singh to the exclusion of his sister and sister- in-law. His conduct in getting the Will registered and in prosecuting the mutation case before the mutation officer on behalf of the legatees is a reflection of his attempt to grab the share of his father.
Apart from this, both the courts below have recorded a consistent finding and no substantial question of law has been agitated which would warrant interference by this Court in a regular second appeal.
The appeal, therefore, is devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.
19.4.2006 (MAHESH GROVER)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.