Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M;) Gian Kaur Etc vs General Public Etc on 16 September, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
vinod kumar
2014.09.19 11:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CR No.1660 of 2000 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.1660 of 2000
Date of decision:16.09.2014
Gian Kaur and another ...Petitioners
Versus
General Public and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. P.S.Punia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S.Dalal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioners have challenged orders dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and dated 04.11.1999 by the District Judge, Ludhiana dismissing their application filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act") for obtaining the succession certificate regarding `1 lac, the estate left behind by Phuman Singh.
Petitioner no.1 is the widow and petitioner no.2 is the daughter of late Phuman Singh. After the death of Phuman Singh on 06.05.1987, the petitioners, being legal heirs of Phuman Singh, applied for release of compensation of `1 lac in the execution application titled as "Phuman Singh v. L.A.C.", which was dismissed by the Executing Court on vinod kumar 2014.09.19 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.1660 of 2000 [2] ***** 10.05.1987 on the ground that they should obtain the succession certificate before claiming the amount.
In view thereof, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 372 of the Act for issuance of succession certificate, which was contested by respondent no.2 on the basis of a registered Will dated 28.01.1972 executed in his favour by Phuman Singh. He had alleged that he is the son of real brother of Phuman Singh and had been serving him as the relations of Phuman Singh with his wife were strained, who was living with her parents for the last 20 years and had never resided with Phuman Singh. She had also filed an application for maintenance and did not attend the rituals performed at the time of death of Phuman Singh. It is also alleged that Phuman Singh had opened a joint bank account as he had been serving him and performed his last rites.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-
"1. Whether Surjit Singh objector is the LR of the deceased on the basis of Registered valid Will dated 28.01.1972?OPR.
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to succession certificate?OPA.
3. Relief."
The petitioners examined Ran Singh as RW1, Angrez Singh as RW2, Surjit Singh himself appeared as RW3 and further examined Gurjant Singh as RW4, Satish Kumar as RW5, Darshan Singh as RW6 and Tejinder vinod kumar 2014.09.19 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.1660 of 2000 [3] ***** Singh as RW7.
The Trial Court dismissed the petition vide its order dated 20.11.1997, holding that the Will set up by respondent no.2 has been duly proved and the issue of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will has not been proved by the petitioners. The lower Appellate Court had also discussed the evidence again and came to the conclusion that the Will has been duly proved because respondent no.2 had not only examined the attesting witnesses of the Will but also proved the entry in the Register of the scribe and his signatures by examining the son of the scribe. Angrej Singh (RW2) had deposed that Phuman Singh used to reside in the house of Surjit Singh-respondent no.2 who not only looked after and served him but also performed his last rites.
All the evidence brought on record by respondent no.2 in this regard showing the nearness, love and affection of Phuman Singh with respondent no.2 which has been appreciated by the Courts below inasmuch as it was found that Phuman Singh had also opened a joint account with respondent no.2.
Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Will is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances because for the natural heirs, no arrangement has been made by Phuman Singh in the Will and no reason has been given for excluding them.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no dispute about the authenticity of the Will as no argument has been raised in this regard except vinod kumar 2014.09.19 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.1660 of 2000 [4] ***** alleging that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances because nothing has been given by Phuman Singh/Testator to his wife and daughter. Although it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sadasivam v. Doria Sami, 1996(1) Apex Court General 1 that divesting of close relation was not suspicious circumstances as divesting close relations was the purpose of execution of the Will, but even then the evidence brought on record by respondent no.2 shows that Phuman Singh was not having good relations with his wife and daughter and he was living separately from them with his brother's son Surjit Singh. The natural act and conduct of the petitioners of not attending the last rites of Phuman Singh or even not immersing his ashes in Shri Pataal Puri Sahib at Shri Kiratpur Sahib would also show that they were not bothered about Phuman Singh during his life time and even after his death.
In these circumstances, there is hardly any reason to interfere in this revision petition to set aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in favour of respondent no.2.
Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit.
September 16, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE