Delhi District Court
Pritpal Singh vs Amarjeet Kaur on 30 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE - 09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-005091-2017
CS DJ No. 678/2017
In the matter of:
Pritpal Singh
S/o Late Sardar Bhagwan Singh,
R/o RZ-292, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi-110018.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Amarjeet Kaur
D/o Late Gurcharan Singh,
W/o Late Joginder Singh,
R/o NW-195G, New Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi-110015.
2. Satnam Singh
S/o Late Gurcharan Singh,
R/o NW-195, New Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi-110015.
3. Saranjeet Kaur (since deceased)
D/o Late Gurcharan Singh,
W/o Sh. Sardar Amrik Singh,
R/o 154, Vishwakarma Mohalla,
Gali No. 4, Yamuna Nagar,
Jagdhari, Haryana.
4. Mohan Singh
S/o Late S. Bhagwan Singh,
R/o NW-195G, New Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi-110015.
5. Ms. Sonia
D/o Late S. Bhagwan Singh,
R/o NW-195G, New Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi-110015.
.... Defendants
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 1/33
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30
16:22:20
+0530
Date of institution : 03.06.2017
Reserved for judgment : 16.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 30.05.2026
SUIT FOR PARTITION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND DECLARATION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for partition, permanent injunction and declaration. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiff, as per plaint, is that the property bearing no. 195, measuring 50 sq. yards, situated in the area of village Khayala known as Vishnu Garden, NW-Block, Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') had been purchased and built-up by his grandfather namely late Gurcharan Singh, out of his own funds. Late Gurcharan Singh died on 25.10.2000 [28.10.2000], leaving behind two sons (father of plaintiff, D-4 and D-5 namely late Bhagwan Singh and D-2/Satnam Singh) and two daughters (D-1/Amarjeet Kaur and D-3/Saranjeet Kaur). The grandmother of plaintiff namely late Prakash Kaur died in the year 1990.
2. It has been further submitted by the plaintiff that after the demise of his grandparents, an oral settlement was arrived at amongst the legal heirs of late Gurcharan Singh. As per the said settlement, half share each of the suit property was given to the father of plaintiff and defendant no. 2. The father of plaintiff expired on 07.06.2016 [07.06.2013], leaving behind two sons (plaintiff and defendant no. 4) and one daughter (defendant no. 5). At present, defendant no. 1 (D-1) was unauthorizedly occupying the suit property. The grandfather of plaintiff had spent huge amount in performance of the marriage of D-1 and D-3, due to which, they did not raise any objection when the suit CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 2/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:22:26 +0530 property was orally partitioned. The plaintiff, being one of the legal heirs of late Bhagwan Singh, is legally entitled to receive his respective share in the undivided suit property. He sent a legal notice dated 10.03.2017 to the defendant. But, despite service of the legal notice, the defendant neither complied with the same nor replied it. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for partition of the suit property, decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from creating third party interest over it and decree of declaration that the documents, if any prepared by the defendants fraudulently, are null and void.
3. In her written statement, D-1 has raised preliminary objection that the present suit is barred by limitation. The father of plaintiff had got separate from his father just after his marriage. He had been quarreling with and abusing his father. Just after the death of late Gurcharan Singh, late Bhagwan Singh and D-3 had demanded their share [in the suit property]. They were told that late Gurcharan Singh had executed a Will dated 25.10.2000 in favour of his daughter/D-1 with right given to D-2 to live in the suit property for life. The copy of Will had also been given to them. On the next day, they came again there and entered into a scuffle with D-1 and her husband late Joginder Singh. They were turned out of the house and told that they had no right, title or interest in the suit property. Again, on 25.12.2000, late Bhagwan Singh and D-3 came to the suit property with the demand of their share, but they were given the same reply. They had also manhandled with D-1, but she did not take any police action on the persuasion of the people of locality. Thereafter, late Bhagwan Singh and D-3 never demanded any share in the suit property.
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 3/33
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30
16:22:31
+0530
4. On merits, D-1 has submitted that she was the owner of suit property by virtue of Will dated 25.10.2000 executed by late Gurcharan Singh/testator in her favour and providing right to live in it to D-2 for life. Further, only ground floor of the suit property was re-constructed by late Gurcharan Singh and rest of the property was constructed by D-1 with the financial help of her second husband, late Joginder Singh.
5. It has been further submitted by D-1 that after the death of [first] husband of D-1, she was discarded by her in-laws. Her father brought her alongwith her two minor children back to his house. He arranged her marriage with late Joginder Singh. At the time of his (late Gurcharan Singh) death, he was living alongwith the family of D-1. She denied the submission of plaintiff about the oral settlement having been arrived at amongst the legal heirs of late Gurcharan Singh. Thus, D-1 has prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
6. In the replication to the written statement of D-1, the plaintiff has denied all the allegations leveled by D-1 against him. He submitted that the alleged Will dated 25.10.2000 was forged, fabricated and manipulated by D-1 only to defeat his rights over the suit property.
7. The defendant no. 2 (D-2) did not appear before the Court and file the written statement. Vide order dated 23.04.2018, he was proceeded ex-parte. During proceedings of the present case, defendant no. 3 appeared before the Court on 18.09.2017 and her son namely Baljit Singh appeared on 12.01.2018. However, since she did not file written statement, her defence was struck off vide order dated 12.01.2018. Later on, she expired on 16.07.2019. On 16.09.2022, an application was moved on behalf of plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 4/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:22:38 +0530 CPC for impleading her legal heirs in the array of parties, wherein it was inter-alia stated that on 02.07.2022, the plaintiff came to know that D-3 [his bua] had expired on 16.07.2019. However, vide order dated 10.01.2023, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn. Further, in their written statement filed by D-4 and D-5, they admitted the claim of plaintiff.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15.10.2018:-
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD-1
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of partition, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP
5. Relief.
9. To prove his claim, the plaintiff examined two witnesses. PW-1 is the plaintiff himself. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW-1/A. He affirmed the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of his father late Sardar Bhagwan Singh, Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Death certificate of Sardar Bhagwan Singh, Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Copy of ration card of Sardar Bhagwan Singh, Mark- P1/A.
4. Copy of legal notice dated 10.03.2017, Mark-P1/B.
5. Copy of postal receipt, Mark-P1/C.
6. Copy of postal envelope, Mark-P1/D. CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 5/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:22:46 +0530
7. Copy of GPA dated 15.10.1986, Mark-A.
8. Copy of gas connection pass-book, Ex.PW-1/7.
9. Death certificate of late Gurcharan Singh, Ex.PW-1/8.
PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of defendant no. 1.
10. PW-2 is Harpal Singh. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW-2/A, wherein he submitted that he was a relative of plaintiff. There were good relations between the father of plaintiff and late Gurcharan Singh. Late Bhagwan Singh always used to take care of his father. Late Gurcharan Singh had not executed any Will dated 25.10.2000 in favour of D-1. The said Will was forged and fabricated. He was cross-examined on behalf of defendant no. 1. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 15.05.2025.
11. To prove her defence, defendant no. 1 examined two witnesses. DW-1 is Vivek Malhotra. He tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.DW-1/A, wherein he submitted that he was one of the attesting witnesses to the Will dated 25.10.2000 executed by late Gurcharan Singh. He (DW-1), before his enrollment as an advocate, was doing typing job in Tis Hazari Complex. He also used to go to the residence- cum-office of some advocates to do typing job. He also used to do computer typing job of Sh. Vinod Malhotra, who was also resident of Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. Late Gurcharan Singh was living in the backstreet of the house of the said advocate. He was having good relations with him and often used to visit his house. He (DW-1) had met late Gurcharan Singh in the house of Sh. Vinod Malhotra, Advocate. He had also developed good relations with him. Sometimes, he (DW-1) went to his house for courtesy visits. His (of late Gurcharan Singh) daughter/D-1 alongwith her husband, children and her younger CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 6/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:22:51 +0530 brother/D-2 was residing with him in the suit property. Late Gurcharan Singh used to tell him regarding the maltreatment and quarrel by his elder son namely Bhagwan Singh.
12. It has been further submitted by DW-1 that in the month of October, 2000, when he was sitting in his house, late Gurcharan Singh talked to him regarding execution of his Will. He (DW-1) told him that it could be typed in the house of Sh. Vinod Malhotra, but he expressed his desire to get the Will executed in Hindi language, which he could understand. On 24.10.2000, he (testator) requested to accompany him (DW-1) for the execution of Will. On 25.10.2000, they (DW-1 and testator) went to District Center, Janakpuri and the testator got typed his Will in Hindi. Late Gurcharan Singh himself dictated the Will. After getting the Will typed, both of them came back to his (testator) house, where another woman named Trilochan Kaur was present. The testator signed the Will and put his thumb impression in his (DW-1) presence. Thereafter, he (DW-1) signed the Will as attesting witness and after him, Trilochan Kaur also signed the Will in his presence. DW-1 identified the signature and thumb impression of the testator, and also his signature as well as that of Trilochan Kaur, on the Will. Further, when they had gone to District Center, the testator was hale and hearty. He (DW-1) came to know that late Gurcharan Singh expired due to sudden heart attack on 28.10.2000. He tendered the Will dated 25.10.2000 as Ex.DW-1/1. He was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
13. DW-2 is the defendant no. 1 herself. She tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex.DW-2/A. She submitted almost on the similar lines as stated by her in written statement. She relied upon the Will dated CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 7/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:22:56 +0530 25.10.2000, Ex.DW-1/1 and Site Plan, Ex.DW-2/1. She was cross-
examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, evidence of defendant no. 1 was closed vide order dated 18.03.2026.
14. I have heard respective Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have perused the material available on record as well as written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In brief, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the Will dated 25.10.2000 is not registered and not even notarized. D-1 has not obtained the probate of the Will. Even otherwise, the stamp paper on which the said Will was drafted had been purchased on 23.10.2000 i.e. two days prior to the alleged execution. Further, there is no signature of second attesting witness on the Will. No medical examination of the testator was got conducted prior to the execution of the alleged Will. Further, there is contradiction in the case of D-1 regarding the age of testator on the day of execution of the Will. D-1 (DW-2) has deposed that she was not aware as to where the Will was typed and when the same was executed. Further, she did not disclose about the existence of Will to her brother/late Bhagwan Singh and her sister/D-3. Ld. Counsel has argued that D-1 has failed to prove the validity of the impugned Will dated 25.10.2000 of late Gurcharan Singh. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition of the suit property. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a precedent in support of his arguments i.e. Clarence Pais v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1151.
15. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has argued that the plaintiff never resided at the suit property. His grandfather, during his lifetime, had already given share to his father. The daughter of late Gurcharan Singh/D-1 was a widow. She had two minor children. Thereafter, she was brought to the suit property by late Gurcharan Singh. He got her CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 8/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:23:01 +0530 second marriage solemnized. Further, his other son/D-2 was having low IQ. D-1 was taking due care of him. Father of plaintiff used to quarrel with late Gurcharan Singh. In these compelling circumstances, late Gurcharan Singh executed the impugned Will, thereby bequeathing the suit property in favour of D-1. Subsequently, Gurcharan Singh expired due to sudden heart attack on 28.10.2000. Further, no doubt could be created upon the impugned Will by the plaintiff. The said Will was typed in Hindi. The said Will was dictated by the testator himself. No suggestion was given by the plaintiff to DW-1/attesting witness that the testator was under any undue influence while executing the Will. The plaintiff did not produce any evidence to prove that the testator was not maintaining good physical or mental health on the day of executing the Will. Moreover, the age of 70-75 years is not the age of feebleness, which could have incapacitated the testator in making decision about execution of the Will. No suggestion was given to DW-1 that the deceased/testator was not treated badly by his son late Bhagwan Singh. Further, no other legal heir of late Gurcharan Singh came forward to contest the present case. Furthermore, the father of plaintiff had been ousted from the suit property way back, hence, the present suit is barred by limitation. Thus, the present case shall be dismissed.
16. Issue-wise findings:
Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of partition, as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that the suit property was owned by his grandfather late Gurcharan Singh, who was survived by two sons and two daughters. Further, the plaintiff, being son of deceased son namely late Bhagwan CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 9/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.05.30 16:23:05 +0530 Singh of late Gurcharan Singh, has share in the suit property. Thus, he has sought its partition. On other hand, D-1 has propounded the Will dated 25.10.2000 of late Gurcharan Singh, whereby he had inter-alia bequeathed the suit property in favour of D-1. Thus, prior to analyze the testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses, the Court wishes to examine the authenticity of the above Will.
17. First of all, the Court is conscious of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta, (2021) 11 SCC 209, wherein the Court has discussed the principles to be followed while deciding the authenticity of a Will. The excerpts of the observations of the Court are:
24. We may now take note of the relevant principles settled by the consistent decisions in regard to the process of examination of a will when propounded before a court of law.
24.1. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court traversed through the vistas of the issues related with execution and proof of will and enunciated a few fundamental guiding principles that have consistently been followed and applied in almost all the cases involving such issues. The synthesis and exposition by this Court in paras 18 to 22 of the said decision could be usefully reproduced as under: (AIR pp. 451-52) "18. What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills? It is well known that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents.
Sections 67 and 68, Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 10/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:23:12 +0530 one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Similarly, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills . It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.
19. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents.
The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 11/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:23:26 +0530 propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.
20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator;
the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English Courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical Courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word "conscience" in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasises that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the Court is the last will CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 12/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:23:32 +0530 of the testator, the Court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive.
22. It is obvious that for deciding material questions of fact which arise in applications for probate or in actions on wills, no hard-and-fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. It may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is quite true that, as observed by Lord Du Parcq in Harmes v. Hinkson, "where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth". It would sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect." (emphasis supplied) xxx 24.8. We need not multiply the references to all and other decisions cited at the Bar, which essentially proceed on the aforesaid principles while applying the same in the given set of facts and circumstances. Suffice would be to point out that in a recent decision in Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, this Court, after traversing through the relevant decisions, has summarised the principles governing the adjudicatory process concerning proof of a will as follows : (SCC pp. 309-10, para 12) "12. ... 12.1. Ordinarily, a will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon.
12.2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence.
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no.Digitally
13/33
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30
16:23:39
+0530
12.3. The unique feature of a will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a will.
12.4. The case in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stands on a different footing. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
12.5. If a person challenging the will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.
12.6. A circumstance is "suspicious" when it is not normal or is 'not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person'. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must be "real, germane and valid" and not merely the "fantasy of the doubting mind". 12.7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as "suspicious" would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependants; an active or leading part in making of the will by the beneficiary thereunder et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances abovenoted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the will. On the other hand, any of the circumstances qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation.
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 14/33 Digitally signed by NAVEENNAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.05.30 16:23:46 +0530 12.8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance(s). While applying such test, the court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? 12.9. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the court and the party which sets up the will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will."
xxx
27. As noticed, there has not been any question on the testamentary capacity and soundness of mind of the testatrix; and her handwriting as also signatures on the will in question are also beyond controversy. However, the trial court and the High Court have concurrently found some such suspicious circumstances which are of material bearing and which have remained unexplained. Put in a nutshell, the unexplained suspicious circumstances so found are:
(a) that appellant, the major beneficiary, played an active role in execution of the will in question and attempted to conceal this fact before the court;
(b) that there had not been any plausible reason for non-inclusion of the only son and other daughter of the testatrix in the process of execution of the will and for excluding them from the major part of the estate in question;
(c) that there was no clarity about the construction supposed to be carried out by the appellant;
(d) that the manner of writing and execution of the will with technical and legal words was highly doubtful; and
(e) that the attesting witnesses were unreliable and there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.
Because of these major circumstances coupled with various supplemental factors, the trial court and the High Court felt dissatisfied on the root question as to whether the testatrix duly executed the will in question after understanding its contents.
28. There is no doubt that any of the factors taken into account by the trial court and the High Court, by itself and standing alone, cannot CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 15/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:23:53 +0530 operate against the validity of the propounded will. That is to say that, the will in question cannot be viewed with suspicion only because the appellant had played an active role in execution thereof though she is the major beneficiary; or only because the respondents were not included in the process of execution of the will; or only because of unequal distribution of assets; or only because there is want of clarity about the construction to be carried out by the appellant; or only because one of the attesting witnesses being acquaintance of the appellant; or only because there is no evidence as to who drafted the printed part of the will and the note for writing the opening and concluding passages by the testatrix in her own hand; or only because there is some discrepancy in the oral evidence led by the appellant; or only because of any other factor taken into account by the courts or relied upon by the respondents. The relevant consideration would be about the quality and nature of each of these factors and then, the cumulative effect and impact of all of them upon making of the will with free agency of the testatrix. In other words, an individual factor may not be decisive but, if after taking all the factors together, conscience of the court is not satisfied that the will in question truly represents the last wish and propositions of the testator, the will cannot get the approval of the court; and, other way round, if on a holistic view of the matter, the court feels satisfied that the document propounded as will indeed signifies the last free wish and desire of the testator and is duly executed in accordance with law, the will shall not be disapproved merely for one doubtful circumstance here or another factor there.
xxx
29.5.2. Thus, practically, it was a case of the testatrix merely copying, on the dotted lines, the text already given to her. The sanctity attached to a bequeath in the handwriting of the testator presupposes a co- ordinated work of a free hand and a free mind, that is, the hand writes what comes out of and given by the mind. In the present case, it is difficult to be satisfied that what is found written in hand by the testatrix had been dictated by her own mind so as to make it an expression of her own free will.
29.5.3. Moreover, the handwritten portions carry such formal and legal expressions like "testament" and "set and subscribed my hand", which are the tools of the language employed by a person who is conversant with legal format and requirements for execution of such a document; and, ordinarily, a layperson like the testatrix is not expected to be conversant with them. The printed portion also carries the expressions like "codicil", "give, devise and bequeath", which are not the expressions of a layperson. In the given circumstances, the want of CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 16/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:02 +0530 evidence as to who drafted the printed portion and the said note (for copying on the dotted lines) becomes an added factor towards suspicion as to whether the contents of the document in question are, in fact, expressive of the actual desire of the testatrix towards succession of her property.
18. To prove the authenticity of the impugned Will, D-1 has examined one of the attesting witnesses to the said Will as DW-1/Vivek Malhotra. In his evidence affidavit, he has explained the circumstances in which he was asked by late Gurcharan Singh to be an attesting witness to his Will. Further, he has identified the signature and thumb impression of the testator on the Will as well as his signature and that of other attesting witness namely Trilochan Kaur.
19. During his cross-examination, DW-1 has inter-alia deposed that he had done his LL.B. in the year 2007. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show that prior to 2007, he was doing typing job in Tis Hazari Court. Often late Gurcharan Singh used to tell that his elder son Bhagwan Singh had been maltreating, thrashing and beating him. Gurcharan Singh had told him that Bhagwan Singh often used to come to demand the share from the suit property and he had already taken share from the proceeds of his (late Gurcharan Singh) other property. He (late Gurcharan Singh) told that he had informed Bhagwan Singh that he wanted to give the suit property to his daughter and on his refusal, Bhagwan Singh would often beat him and people of street would gather there.
20. DW-1 has further deposed that on or around 15.10.2000, Sh.
Gurcharan Singh expressed his desire to execute a Will and asked him whether he (DW-1) could help him in doing so, to which he answered in affirmative. Again on 24.10.2000, he (testator) asked him to CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 17/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.05.30 16:24:12 +0530 accompany to execute the Will on 25.10.2000. On 25.10.2000, he (DW-1) had accompanied him to District Centre, Janakpuri. He admitted that he (DW-1) did not get any medical certificate from any doctor whether Sh. Gurcharan Singh was hale and hearty or not. DW-1 deposed that he (testator) was quite hale and hearty and was talking to him in very appropriate manner.
21. DW-1 has deposed that the stamp paper was already in the possession of Gurcharan Singh and he (DW-1) was not aware as to from where he had purchased the said stamp paper. Further, when he alongwith late Gurcharan Singh came back to his house after having got the Will typed, besides Trilochan Kaur, 2-3 neighbors were also present. Gurcharan Singh asked the neighbors to leave. No other family member was present at that time. Further, he (DW-1) did not recall the age of Gurcharan Singh at the time of execution of the Will. He admitted that Gurcharan Singh might be of about 70 years of age.
22. If the testimony of DW-1 is taken into consideration as a whole, it is made out that DW-1, in his evidence affidavit, has explained as to how he had come into contact with late Gurcharan Singh. He has further mentioned about the background facts that he used to do typing job at the residence of Sh. Vinod Malhotra, Advocate. In such situation, he was not supposed to produce any document to show that he was earlier doing typing job in Tis Hazari Court or in the office-cum-house of Sh. Vinod Malhotra, Advocate. It is worth noting that DW-1 remained firm and consistent regarding the aspect that how did he meet late Gurcharan Singh. He reiterated the version made by him in the evidence affidavit regarding family conditions of late Gurcharan Singh, as divulged by him with DW-1 and the said conditions also match with CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 18/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:17 +0530 the evidence led by the parties in this regard. Such as, 'Gurcharan Singh had told me that just after his marriage, Bhagwan Singh had got separated from him'. So far as other aspects narrated by DW-1 regarding inter-se relation between late Gurcharan Singh and his son Bhagwan Singh are concerned, the same cannot be held to be introduced by him (DW-1) at the instance of D-1, as it is pertinent to note that he has deposed so in response to the questions put to him during his cross-examination, rather than mentioning the same on his own in his evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. He has clarified that he had not mentioned the said facts in his evidence affidavit. He voluntarily stated that he told these facts on being asked in the Court.
23. DW-1 has explained the circumstances in which he accompanied late Gurcharan Singh to District Centre, Janakpuri, where the impugned Will was got typed by the testator. It is worth noting that it was not the duty of DW-1 to get any medical certificate from doctor to verify whether the testator was hale and hearty or not. DW-1 has clarified that that the testator was talking to him in appropriate manner, meaning thereby, he did not get any impression that the testator was disoriented or unwell or not of sound disposing state of mind on the day of execution of the Will. If the plaintiff wished to raise any suspicious circumstance regarding mental or physical health of the testator on or around the day of execution of Will i.e. 25.10.2000, he must have brought on record any medical document or examine any witness to show that late Gurcharan Singh was unwell or he was unable to comprehend the consequences of his acts i.e. execution of the impugned Will. Surprisingly, the plaintiff did not even put a suggestion to the attesting witness/DW-1 that the testator was not well at the time of execution of the impugned Will and he was unable to comprehend the CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 19/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:23 +0530 consequences of his acts or he was not of sound disposing mind at that time. Further, no such suspicious circumstance was put to DW-2 too during her cross-examination. She has categorically deposed that he (late Gurcharan Singh) was not ill at that time.
24. It is correct that the Will dated 25.10.2000, Ex.DW-1/1 has been prepared on the stamp paper purchased on 23.10.2000. But, it is worth noting that DW-1 has clarified that the testator was already having the stamp paper on which the impugned Will was prepared. Further, at the back of the stamp paper, it has been specifically mentioned that the stamp paper had been sold to Gurcharan Singh. Thus, the testimony of DW-1 is trustworthy on this aspect. So far as the argument of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is concerned that there is no explanation for two days delay in execution of the Will after purchase of the stamp paper. In the background of above observations, the Court does not find any substance in the argument, as there is no considerable time gap in the purchase of stamp paper and execution of the Will.
25. DW-1, during his cross-examination, has reiterated that initially, the Will was got typed at District Centre, Janakpuri, then they came to the house of late Gurcharan Singh, where another attesting witness Trilochan Kaur was present. The testator asked her to read the Will. Thereafter, Gurcharan Singh signed the Will, which was followed by signing of the Will by DW-1 and Trilochan Kaur. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the Will Ex.DW-1/1 did not bear the signature of other attesting witness Trilochan Kaur. Firstly, in his examination-in- chief itself, DW-1 has categorically stated that Trilochan Kaur had signed at point 'C' on the Will Ex.DW-1/1. Further, during his cross- examination too, he reiterated that she had signed the Will as an CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 20/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.05.30 16:24:27 +0530 attesting witness and in the presence of late Gurcharan Singh. No question/suggestion was put to DW-1 to the effect that the said signature of Trilochan Kaur at point 'C' is merely her name mentioned in the Will, instead of her signature. This leads to infer that the plaintiff did not dispute the version of DW-1 regarding the signature of Trilochan Kaur at point 'C' of the impugned Will. Thus, in absence of any challenge to the claim of DW-1, regarding signing of the Will by Trilochan Kaur as an attesting witness, during his cross-examination, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to raise an objection in this regard at the stage of final arguments.
26. This aspect can be looked into from another angle too. The defendant no. 1 had mentioned the name of other attesting witness to the impugned Will i.e. Trilochan Kaur in the list of her defence witnesses filed on 15.09.2025. She had filed the evidence affidavit of both the attesting witnesses i.e. DW-1 and Trilochan Kaur on that day itself i.e. 15.09.2025, on record. Thus, not only the Will, Ex.DW-1/1 bears the address of Trilochan Kaur, but her evidence affidavit also contains her previous as well as present address. The plaintiff could have sought permission of the Court to examine her as a witness or brought any evidence on record to prove that the signature of Trilochan Kaur on her evidence affidavit does not match with the impugned signature of Trilochan Kaur on the Will Ex.DW-1/1, as an attesting witness. It is clarified here itself that the defendant no. 1, propounder of the Will, was not required as per applicable provisions of law to examine other attesting witness, in the circumstances when during cross-examination of one of the attesting witnesses/DW-1, the plaintiff had not disputed the signature of Trilochan Kaur on the impugned Will, as other attesting witness.
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 21/33 Digitally signed by NAVEENNAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.05.30 16:24:33 +0530
27. Further, except a bald submission that the Will did not bear signature and thumb impression of late Gurcharan Singh, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to prove the said claim. He did not bring on record any admitted signature of late Gurcharan Singh to show that the questioned signature of testator on the impugned Will does not match with his actual signature. He did not examine any handwriting expert on this aspect.
28. In view of above observations, it is made out that testimony of DW-1 is trustworthy and it proves the aspect that the testator had executed the Will, Ex.DW-1/1 and he (DW-1) and Trilochan Kaur were the attesting witnesses to the Will.
29. Before deliberating upon the suspicious circumstances, if any, the Court wishes to examine the testimony of DW-2/D-1. DW-2, in her cross-examination, has deposed that her second marriage was solemnized in the year 1991-92 with Sardar Joginder Singh. He moved in the suit property after their marriage. She (DW-2) admitted that she had not filed any document on record to show that her husband used to provide financial help to her father. She denied the suggestion that ground, first, second and third floor at the suit property were got constructed by herself and her husband. She admitted that she had not filed any document to show that first, second and third floor of the suit property were constructed by her and her husband. She deposed that they had not filed any police complaint against Bhagwan Singh regarding the alleged quarrels which he used to pick up with his father. Her father had not filed any complaint against the act of Bhagwan Singh of pushing him. Further, Bhagwan Singh also used to misbehave with her, however, he did not quarrel with her. She admitted that after CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 22/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:38 +0530 the death of her father, all her brothers had visited their house for condolence. She denied the suggestion that at that time, an oral settlement was arrived at between them regarding partition of suit property. She admitted that during the lifetime of her father, he did not disown Bhagwan Singh at any point of time from the suit property. She denied the suggestion that the address mentioned on the legal notice was her correct address.
30. DW-2 has further deposed that she did not know where the Will, Ex.DW-1/1 was prepared. She did not know who had prepared the Will. She did not know in whose presence the same was prepared. She came to know about the Will on 26.10.2000. At the time of preparation of Will, her father was not ill. She did not know as to when the Will was signed. She voluntarily stated that she was handed over the signed Will. The signatures and thumb impression were not put on the Will in her presence. She disclosed the fact of execution of Will to her younger brother Satnam Singh. She had read over the contents of Will to her younger brother, who was and is still residing with her. At that time, he agreed to the Will.
31. The above version of DW-2 shows that she remained firm and consistent during her cross-examination. The plaintiff did not controvert her version made in her evidence affidavit that late Gurcharan Singh expired due to sudden heart attack on 28.10.2000 and prior to his death, he was hale and hearty. The version of DW-2 that late Bhagwan Singh had got separated from his father Gurcharan Singh just after his marriage, has also not been controverted. Further, no challenge was put to DW-2 regarding her version that just after the execution of Will, late Bhagwan Singh came to their house and late Gurcharan Singh had told CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 23/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:42 +0530 him about execution of the Will on the previous day and also gave him a copy of the same. Further, no suggestion was put to DW-2 that she had not given copy of the Will dated 25.10.2000 to her brother Bhagwan Singh and sister Saranjeet Kaur, after the death of her father.
32. So far as aspect that late Gurcharan Singh had never disowned late Bhagwan Singh from his movable and immovable properties, is concerned. When late Gurcharan Singh had already wished to bequeath his property in favour of D-1 and also to make arrangements for the future security of D-2, it was not legally required for him to disown his other son Bhagwan Singh from his property. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that D-1 has not placed on record any complaint having been filed by late Gurcharan Singh against his son late Bhagwan Singh regarding mistreatment, abusive behavior etc. D-1/DW-2 has explained in her evidence affidavit itself that out of self-respect, her father told that he did not want to file any complaint against his own son because it would bring bad name to the family.
33. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that DW-2 has deposed that she was not aware about the steps initiated by late Gurcharan Singh with respect to the execution of the impugned Will. It is worth noting that DW-1 has categorically deposed that at the time when the testator and attesting witnesses signed the Will at the house of testator, no other family member was present. This version corroborates the testimony of D-1/DW-2 that she did not know as to when the Will was signed. The signatures and thumb impressions were not put on the Will, in her presence. The Court is of the view that this is not a suspicious circumstance, rather it reflects that DW-2 was not instrumental in getting the impugned Will executed. It shall be considered as a natural CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 24/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:48 +0530 testimony, if DW-2 has shown her unawareness about the steps initiated by late Gurcharan Singh with respect to the execution of the impugned Will. In other words, this circumstance goes in favour of D-1 that the Will was not executed by the testator under any influence of D-1 or it was not executed at her instance.
34. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that in the Will, Ex.DW-1/1, the age of testator has been mentioned as 75 years, while DW-1 mentioned his age as 70 years and DW-2/D-1 has deposed that her father was around 80 years of age. Firstly, if the plaintiff wished to dispute the age of testator as mentioned in the Will, then he should have brought any specific evidence on record regarding his (testator) age. Further, the Court does not find the difference in the age mentioned by DW-1 and DW-2 as material in nature. Thus, this argument does not provide any favour to the plaintiff.
35. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that a doubt is created on the Will due to the circumstance that late Gurcharan Singh expired on 28.10.2000 (as per his death certificate, Ex.DW-1/8) i.e. just after three days of execution of the impugned Will. It is pertinent to note that in his evidence affidavit itself, DW-1 has categorically stated that he had come to know that late Gurcharan Singh expired due to sudden heart attack on 28.10.2000. The said version of DW-1 was not controverted at all by the plaintiff during his cross-examination. The plaintiff did not even suggest to DW-1 that late Gurcharan Singh did not expire due to sudden heart attack or he was suffering from any prolonged illness. Similarly, DW-2/D-1 had also mentioned in her evidence affidavit Ex.DW-2/A that her father suffered a sudden heart attack on 28.10.2000. She has also mentioned about the circumstances occurred CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 25/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:54 +0530 during the period between execution of the Will and death of the testator. But, during her cross-examination, the said version of DW-2 was not controverted. Thus, only because the testator died due to sudden heart attack within three days of execution of his Will, no suspicious circumstance gets created in absence of any evidence produced, or even pleadings made, on behalf of the plaintiff in this regard.
36. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the impugned Will remained completely undisclosed for several years after the death of late Gurcharan Singh. It is pertinent to note that D-1, in her written statement itself, has categorically stated that just after the death of late Gurcharan Singh, late Bhagwan Singh and D-3 had demanded their share [in the suit property]. They were told that late Gurcharan Singh had executed a Will dated 25.10.2000 in favour of his daughter/D-1 with lifetime right given to D-2 to live in the suit property. The copy of Will had also been given to them. Surprisingly, during her cross-
examination, the said version of DW-2 was not controverted on behalf of the plaintiff. It is worth noting that PW-1/plaintiff during his cross- examination, has deposed that his mother told him that signature on the Will was forged. His mother had shown him the Will and told that signature of Sh. Gurcharan Singh was forged. This version of PW-1 proves that the plaintiff had the possession of copy of the Will beforehand. Thus, the argument that D-1 did not disclose about the existence of Will, is not tenable.
37. So far as other arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are concerned. The testator was not supposed to mention in his Will as to how and when he became absolute owner of the property CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 26/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:24:59 +0530 bequeathed by him. Moreover, the plaintiff has himself pleaded that the testator was the owner of the suit property. Further, it was not required, as per applicable provisions of law, to get the Will notarized or registered. Further, it is not required to get the probate of the Will. It is not required to affix photograph of either the executor or the beneficiary on the Will.
38. Though the plaintiff has not pleaded any other suspicious circumstance in respect of execution of the impugned Will, yet the Court proceeds to consider other aspects related to the said Will. The testator explained in the Will itself as to why did he exclude his elder son namely Bhagwan Singh from the fruits of the suit property i.e. his son resided separately since his marriage and he used to abuse him. He has also explained that his elder daughter Saranjeet Kaur is married and happy. He has explained as to why had he made D-1 as beneficiary of the Will i.e. she did not have any other place of residence. He had also made arrangement for his younger son Satnam Singh to live in the suit property for life.
39. The plaintiff has also examined a witness/PW-2 claiming that the impugned Will is forged and fabricated. Though PW-2 in his evidence affidavit has deposed that late Gurcharan Singh had not executed any Will dated 25.10.2000 in favour of D-1 and the said Will was forged and fabricated. But, in his cross-examination, he deposed that he had never seen late Gurcharan Singh writing and signing. He had never seen the Will, which was on record. It is beyond comprehension that when PW-2 had never seen late Gurcharan Singh writing and signing and he had not even seen the Will, then on what basis, he made a statement on oath that the Will dated 25.10.2000 was forged and fabricated.
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 27/33
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30
16:25:04
+0530
Surprisingly, during his further cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that he asked Gurcharan Singh whether he had executed any Will, which was denied by him. This version of PW-2 too is not trustworthy. He has not explained as to on which specific date, late Gurcharan Singh had told him that he had not executed any Will. On one hand, the plaintiff has doubted that how could the impugned Will be allegedly executed on 25.10.2000 by late Gurcharan Singh and he expired just after three days i.e. on 28.10.2000. Then, on which date or occasion, PW-2 might have asked late Gurcharan Singh about execution of any Will by him. Thus, testimony of PW-2 does not provide any support to the plaintiff. Rather, it leads to infer that the plaintiff, through the testimony of PW-2, has tried to create an evidence, but he has miserably failed in his such design.
40. Accordingly, the plaintiff has not been able to raise any suspicious circumstance regarding the execution of the impugned Will, which has not been removed or explained by D-1. Thus, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Kanwar (supra), the impugned Will dated 25.10.2000 of late Gurcharan Singh is hereby held valid. As per the mandate of said Will, the testator had bequeathed the suit property in favour of his younger daughter/D-1 and also provided lifetime right to live in it to his younger son Satnam Singh/D-2. Accordingly, the plaintiff has no right to seek partition of the suit property. Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
41. Issue No.1 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD-1 Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no.1. During his cross-
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 28/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTANAVEEN Date:
GUPTA 2026.05.30
16:25:08
+0530
examination, PW-1 has deposed that he was born in Chaukhandi, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. His I-card, election card, aadhar card and ration card all are of the address of J. J. Colony, Chaukhandi. He did not know whether after the death of her [first] husband, D-1 was thrown away by her in-laws, however, his grandfather had brought her back. He voluntarily stated that his father also cooperated in bringing her. He admitted that after being thrown away by her in-laws, she lived with his grandfather. Further, when his grandfather late Gurcharan Singh expired, they alongwith his father and rest of family were residing at A-121, J. J. Colony, Chaukhandi. After the purchase of suit property, his grandparents alongwith his uncle Satnam Singh and both bua D-1 and D-3 shifted to the suit property. Their (PW-1) family never lived in the suit property. His father had difference of opinion with his grandfather sometimes.
42. PW-1 has further deposed that as mentioned in para no. 6 of his evidence affidavit, there was no oral settlement whereby it was decided that half of the property would go to his father and half to Satnam Singh. His grandfather had told his younger brother late Jagir Singh that the property should be divided between all the shareholders. PW-1 has further deposed that he had never demanded his share from D-1. He again stated that he had requested her to partition the suit property. His father never demanded share from the suit property. There was no occasion or any cause for his father to demand the share in the suit property. He did not know whether his father had received the copy of Will or not. He again stated that his father did not get the copy of Will. His father never asked for the partition of suit property because the property belonged to them. He voluntarily stated that his mother told CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 29/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.05.30 16:25:14 +0530 him that signature on the Will was forged. His mother had shown him the Will. His father expired on 07.06.2013.
43. PW-1 admitted that Satnam Singh was residing in the suit property with his bua. He is unmarried. He voluntarily stated that he received injury in November riots and had gone little bit mentally disbalanced. He voluntarily stated that he (Satnam Singh) is still earning.
44. In the above version, PW-1 has categorically admitted that late Bhagwan Singh and his family had never resided at the suit property. The documents tendered by the plaintiff i.e. Aadhar card of late Bhagwan Singh, Ex.PW-1/1, death certificate of late Bhagwan Singh, Ex.PW-1/2 and ration card issued in the name of Bhagwan Singh, Mark-P1/A bear the address as of A-121, J. J. Colony, Chaukhandi, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The version of PW-1 that his mother had shown him the Will, leads to infer that he was very much aware about the existence of the Will of late Gurcharan Singh. It has already been observed that during cross-examination of DW-2, her version of providing the copy of Will to late Bhagwan Singh, just after the death of her father was not controverted on behalf of the plaintiff. The above observations reflect that there was ouster of late Bhagwan Singh and his family from the fruits of suit property since the death of late Gurcharan Singh on 28.10.2000. It has been admitted by PW-1 that his father never demanded share from the suit property. It is pertinent to note that late Bhagwan Singh expired on 07.06.2013, but he never demanded share in the suit property for more than 12 years since the death of his father. He did not challenge the validity of Will dated 25.10.2000, of his father. Even if it is remotely considered that the plaintiff could have CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 30/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:25:19 +0530 challenged the validity of the Will after the death of his father only, then too, he has filed the present suit on 03.06.2017, which is beyond the limitation period of three years since the death of his father. It appears that the plea of oral family settlement having been arrived at between the legal heirs of late Gurcharan Singh was introduced by the plaintiff in the plaint just to create a cause of action in his favour. Surprisingly, the plaintiff did not mention date, month and year of the alleged oral family settlement. Furthermore, no such averment regarding oral family settlement was mentioned by the plaintiff in his legal notice dated 10.03.2017, Mark-P1/B. Even otherwise, during his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that it was the desire of his grandfather which was shared with his younger brother late Jagir Singh that the property should be divided between all the shareholders.
45. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Amrit Kaur v. Sarabjeet Singh, (2008) 153 DLT 392, has held that:
8. Article 110 of the Schedule to the Act provides that a suit by a person excluded from a joint family property, to enforce a right to share therein is twelve years. The starting point is when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff.
9. It has been held that the object underlying this Article is to afford protection to a member of a joint Hindu family against prejudicial action by the other members of the family behind his back with respect to his interest in the family property. It has been held that this provision, prescribing the period of limitation, and the conditions of its applicability also apply to suits for partition (Radhoba v. Aburao, AIR 1929 PC 231). It has also been held that 'exclusion' is a fact specific circumstance, to be seen in the light of materials on record in every case. However, what should be seen by the Court is the intention of the persons so seeking to exclude the plaintiff, from the enjoyment of his (or her) share (Haresh v. Hardevi, 1927 (1) ILR 49 All 763; Velayudhan v. Velumpi Kunji, ILR 1958 Ker. 389 (FB) and Marudhanayagam Pillai v. Sola Pillai, 77 Mad LW 697). This Court too, had applied a similar criteria, when considering whether the CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 31/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2026.05.30 16:25:24 +0530 suit was time-barred, and in the judgment Ramesh Chand v. Tek Chand, 111 (2004) DLT 193.
10. In this case the plaintiff avers, clearly enough that her entitlement arose upon the death of Desh Raj Singh, in 1988; she further submits that:
"14. That, it appears that, soon after the demise of Sh. Dish Raj Singh and Shri Amrit Pal Singh defendant No. 1-became dishonest and in collusion with defendant No. 2 started carrying on the family business in an arbitrary manner, detrimental to the interest of HUF."
11. In the averments prior to the above allegations, it was contended that the family properties were acquired by the late father, who had, after becoming advanced of age, left its management to the first defendant, who acted as the Karta. Even if the plaintiff's right to seek partition assuming there to be one, were to be reckoned on the later date indicated, i.e. after the death of the late Amrit Pal Singh, (who died in 1993) the suit was time barred, having been filed only in 2006.
46. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Samir Sharma v. Sterre Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1511, has held that:
37. In so far as limitation period for a suit for partition is concerned, it is trite that no period of limitation has been prescribed therefor and there is always a running cause of action for seeking partition by one of the co-sharers. However, the limitation for suit for partition would be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act only when a co-sharer or joint owner in possession of the property, professes a hostile title as against the other co-sharers openly and to the knowledge of the other co-owners, in which case the limitation period will be 12 years from the date when possession of a co-sharer becomes adverse to that of other co-sharers.
47. Applying the above precedents in the present facts and circumstances, it is held that the present suit is barred by limitation. The issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.
48. Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 32/33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30 16:25:28 +0530 Since the Court has already observed that the plaintiff has no right to seek partition of the suit property, thus, he is not entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from creating any third party interest over the suit property. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff.
49. Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP The plaintiff has made a vague prayer that the documents, if any got prepared by the defendants fraudulently, be declared as null and void. He has not clarified as to which specific document had been got prepared by the defendants fraudulently. It appears that just to conceal the aspect of his knowledge about the existence of the impugned Will of late Gurcharan Singh, the plaintiff has cleverly worded the said prayer clause stating that the document, if any got prepared by the defendant fraudulently, be declared null and void. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided against the plaintiff.
50. Relief In view of the findings on above issues, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint. This suit is dismissed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Digitally signed by NAVEENAnnounced in the open Court NAVEEN GUPTA
on the 30th day of May, 2026 GUPTA Date:
2026.05.30
16:25:32 +0530
(Naveen Gupta)
District Judge-09, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS DJ 678/2017 Page no. 33/33