Punjab-Haryana High Court
Birdevinder Singh vs Parminder Kaur And Ors on 3 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082
Page 1 of 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
114 RSA-821-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.02.2025
Birdevinder Singh
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Parminder Kaur & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr.Ashok Bhardwaj,, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The contesting defendant No.1 is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1, seeking a decree declaring the plaintiff and defendant No.4 to be owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Bahal Singh s/o Bagga Singh to the extent of 1/5th share of the property as detailed in the plaint;
and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating, mortgaging, disposing of in any manner any part of the suit property on the basis of impugned mutation, has been partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.07.2018 02.07.2018. The said decree was challenged by the defendant No.1 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur by way of Civil Appeal No.331 of 21.07.2018 which was dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2022.
07.12.2022. Hence, the present second appeal.
1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 2 of 18
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the 'defendant No.1; contesting respondent No.1 as the 'plaintiff' and pro forma respondents No.2 to 4 as the 'defendants No.2 to 4'.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for decree of declaration declaring the plaintiff and defendant No.4 to be the owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh to the extent of 1/5t 1/5th share of the suit property, on the basis of natural succession. The plaintiff also sought setting aside the mutation No. 11585 11585-A sanctioned in favour of the appellant/defendant No.1 regarding the estate of Bahal Singh. The plaintiff further sought declaration declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 to be the owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Dalip Kaur widow of Bahal Singh being the legal heirs of her predeceased son namely Paramjit Singh on the basis of natural succession and further sett setting aside mutation No. 11718-A 11718 A sanctioned in favour of appellant/ defendant No.1 regarding the estate of Dalip Kaur widow of Bahal Singh. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 to be the owners and in joint possession out of the estate of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh being the widow and daughter of Paramjit Singh on the basis of natural succession. Setting aside of mutation No. 11587 regarding the estate of Paramjit Singh sanctioned in favour of Dalip Kaur widow of Bahal Singh was also sought. Further decree of permanent 2 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 3 of 18 injunction against the appellant/defendant No.1 qua the suit property was also sought.
4. The case set up by the plaintiff is that Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh was co-owner co in the suit property mentioned in the head note of the plaint. Said Bahal Singh died on 22.1.2002, leaving behind Dalip Kaur widow, Birdevinder Singh-son Singh son (appellant), Sarabjit Kaur Kaur-
daughter, Ravinder Kaur-daughter, Kaur and plaintiff and defendant No.4 being daughter and wife of predeceased son of Bahal Singh namely, Paramjit Singh. Dalip Kaur also died on 3.6.2003.
5. The plaintiff's 's case was that Sukhmohinder Kaur-
defendant No.4 married Paramjit Singh i.e. son of Ba Bahal Singh and Dalip Kaur on 24.1.1981 and Marriage Registration Certificate No. 1981 was issued. Out of the wedlock of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur, one female child namely, Parminder Kaur-plaintiff Kaur plaintiff was born on 1.1.1982 at New Westminster, Canada. According to the plaintiff above mentioned Paramjit Singh died intestate on 22.5.1982 at New Westminster Canada, leaving behind plaintiff and his mother Dalip Kaur to be his only legal heirs.
6. After the death of Paramjit Singh his share in suit property was mutated in favour of his mother. The plaintiff alleges that she had no knowledge regarding sanctioning of mutations prior to January 2013 and then has ha filed the instant suit. The suit has been filed through 3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 4 of 18 her Special Attorney Tejinder Singh son of Harcharan Singh Bajwa, resident of House No.319, Dhakoa Road, District Jalandhar, Punjab.
7. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement taking preliminary objections. However, on merit defendant No.1 submitted that he had acquired title to the t property in dispute on the basis of registered sale deed dated 22.11.1995 executed by above mentioned Bahal Singh i.e. father of the defendant No.1.
No.1 Hence the suit property is self self-acquired property of the defendant No. 1.
8. Defendant efendant No. 1 further submitted in the written statement that he had inherited the property of Bahal Singh vide registered Will dated 22.11.1995 duly executed by Bahal Singh out of his self-acquired acquired estate and mutation No. 11585/A was got rightly sanction sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1.
9. The defendant No.1 further submitted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no concern with the revenue estate of Bahal Singh; and that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 have no concern or relation with Paramjit Singh i.e. son of Bahal Singh. Said Paramjit Singh died in the year 1982 in Canada before the death of Bahal Singh. Paramjit Singh never came to India and his cremation was also held at Vancouver (British Columbia), Canada. The defendant No.1 deni denied the relationship of plaintiff and defendant No.1 with Paramjit Singh Singh. It was further alleged that the present suit had ha been filed in connivance with Tejinder Singh by concocting a false story just to grab the suit property. Even the questions 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 5 of 18 were raised d regarding the alleged power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in the name of Tejinder Singh. It was also submitted in the written statement that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 are not Indian citizens and rather they are citizens of Canada.
10. The defendant No.1 submitted in the written statement that Dalip Kaur died on 3.6.2003 and the defendant No.1 inherited the property of Dalip Kaur on the basis of registered Will dated 17.11.2000,, leading to sanctioning of Mutation No.11718/A.
11. After completion of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed following issues:-
issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.4 are owners and "1.
in joint possession of the suit property? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether defendant No.1 inherited the property on the basis of registered Will dated 22.11.1995 executed by Bahal Singh in favour of defendant No. 1? OPD.
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD.
6. Whether the suit of the plainti plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.
8. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the instant suit? OPD.
9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad ffor non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 6 of 18
10. Relief."
12. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that the plaintiff is claiming title to the suit property on the strength of Power of Attorney in favour of Tejinder Singh whom she has never met; and on the strength of documents (Ex.P1, P2 and P3) (Annexures A1, A2 and A3 respectively before this Court), which do not disclose that she is related with the family of the defendant No.1 in any manner. Learned counsel submits that a bare reading of the documents (Annexures A1, A2 and A3) shows that the plaintiff is not not even disclosed to be daughter of Paramjit Singh; and that Paramjit Singh is further not disclosed to be the son of Bahal Singh. Thus, the plaintiff has not been unable to establish her connection to the estate of Bahal Singh in any manner. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed by the learned Courts below.
13. It is secondly contended by ld. counsel for the defendant No.1 that there was a registered Will dated 22.11.1995 executed by Bahal Singh in favour of defendant no.1 no.1, and mutation No. 11585/A was got rightly sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 11. It is further contended that mutation No.42185 does not confer title on the plaintiff. Moreover, the said mutation has been challenged by the defendant No.1 in a separate civil suit.
s
14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant no.1 that the plaintiff is a Canadian citizen. The plaintiff has admitted in her cross-examination examination (Annexure A-4) that she is not an Indian citizen and 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 7 of 18 even her mother is a Canadian Citizen. It is contended that the natural succession is governed by the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and it extend extends to whole of India. The plaintiff and defendant no. 4 being Canadian Citizens cannot claim any inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act 1956. It is submitted mitted that a legal question which would require consideration by this Court is whether a Foreign National can claim inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act 1956. It is however, admitted that the ground regarding inheritance has not been raised by the defendant No.1 before the learned Courts below.
15. It is finally submitted that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff when she was 32 years of age on th the strength of Power of Attorney. Moreover, the plaintiff had married in July 2013 and the Civil Suit was filed on 14.10.2013 on the instigation of her in in-laws.
Defendant No.4/mother of the plaintiff has re re-married in 1990 and has not come forward to claim inheritance at any stage. Learned counsel further submits that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable as she had sought a decree only for declaration and not for the consequential relief of possession. The defendants are stated to be in possession of the suit property at present. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside.
16. No other argument is raised on behalf of the defendant No.1.
7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 8 of 18
17. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and perused the case file in great detail.
18. The plaintiff has laid claim to the suit property on the basis of natural succession. The defendant No.1 has contested her claim primarily on two grounds: a) that the plaintiff has claimed connection to the estate of Bahal Singh on the basis of documents (Ex.P1, P2 and P3).
Ex.P1 is the birth certificate dated 01.01.1982 of the plaintiff. It has been contended that the said birth certificate does not bear the name of Paramjit Singh/father of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has further relied upon certificate of marriage (Ex.P2) dated 24.01.1981 between Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur. It has been contended that even Ex.P2 does not show Paramjit Singh as son of Bahal Singh. Plaintiff has further placed reliance on death death certificate dated 22.05.198 22.05.1982 (Ex.P3) of Paramjit Singh. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant No.1 that even the said certificate of death does not show Paramjit Singh to be the son of Bahal Singh. It has accordingly been been argued that the said documents do not in any manner connect the plaintiff to the estate of Bahal Singh and therefore, she cannot claim title to her share of the suit property on the ground of inheritance.
19. I find no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for defendant No.1. A perusal of the documents Ex. P1, P2 and P3, shows the same to be duly notarised by the competent authority in Canada. Needless to say, a presumption of truth is attached to such 8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 9 of 18 documents. Moreover, Ex.P2 which is the marriage certificate attested by the Notary Public of British Columbia which shows that the birthplace of Paramjit aramjit Singh is mentioned as Benra, Benra, Sangrur, Punjab, India. Further, this issue has been comprehensively and correctly dealt with by the learned trial court. Relevant part of judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed by the learned trial Court is as under:-
under:
"13. Now the main dispute in the present suit is revolving around a question that whether plaintiff is daughter of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh and defendant No. 4 is widow of Paramjit Singh or not. Burden to prove this fact was on the plaintiff and in order to discharge this burden, plaintiff herself stepped into witness box as PW PW-1 and deposed through her duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW1 Ex.PW1/A. In her affidavit, she specifically deposed that she is the daughte daughter of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh. She further deposed that defendant No. 4 solemnized marriage with Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh in Canada. She further specifically deposed in her affidavit that she was born out of the wedlock of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur i.e. defendant No. 4. Further in order to corroborate her oral testimony, she has placed on record certified notarized copy of her birth certificate, ate, certified from Notary Public of British Colombia, as Ex.P1. Perusal of Ex.Pl reveals that date of birth of plaintiff is 01.01.1982. Further perusal of this document reveals that same was issued on 03.02.1982 well before the arising of controversy in the he present suit. Further plaintiff has placed on record a photocopy of marriage certificate of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur which is marked as Ex.P2. This marriage certificate is duly attested by the Notary
9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 10 of 18 Public of British Colombia, Perusal of Ex Ex.P2 reveals that place of birth of Paramjit Singh Deol is mentioned as Benra, Sangrur, Punjab, India and it is admitted fact that Bahal Singh father of Paramjit Singh and defendant Birdevinder Singh are also resident of village Benra. Further this document shows that the marriage was solemnized between Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur on dated 24.01.1981 and this certificate was issued on 28.01.1981. This document is also well before the controversy in the present case. Further plaintiff has placed on record ecord certified copy of death certificate of Paramjit Singh which is marked as Ex.P3 and this document is duly attested by Notary Public of British Colombia. This certificate was issued on 27.05.1982 which is also well before the controversy in the present case. The certified copies of these documents are copies of public documents. The certified copies of the public document of British of Columbia attested by the Notary Public, Barristers and Solicitor are persi-admissible admissible and presumption is attached under section 78 (6) and 85 of Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1083 of 2000 case titled as Mehnga Singh and others Vs. Gurdial Singh and others decided on 13.08.2003 held that a public document belonging to a foreign country can be proved by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof with a certificate either of a Notary Public or an Indian Consul or a Diplomatic Agent. Such document fulfills the the requirements of Section 78 (6) of Evidence Act, 1872. Further Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2547 of 1979 case titled as Chanan Kaur alias Channo Versus Pakhar Singh and others decided on 03.09.2003 held that as per Registrat Registration Act, 1908 Section 33 10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 11 of 18 General Power of Attorney made by a person residing outside India, duly authenticated by the Notary Public fulfill the requirements under Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act. It does not require registration in India, Its ori original or certified copy is admissible in evidence and attached with a rebuttable presumption of its valid execution. Further Hon'ble Delhi 1987case titled as High Court in S.A.O. Nos. 378 and 379 of 1987 Rajesh Wadhwa Versus Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Govil decided on 27.10.1988 7.10.1988 held that attestation of documents by Notary Public of a foreign country where a seal of Notary is put on document, it is to be presumed that document has been attested by a competent Notary of that country.
14. Further to corroborate these docu documents, plaintiff has placed on record other documents i.e. landing paper of Paramjit Singh at Canada Mark P4, letter written by Bahal Singh Ex.P6, its envelop Ex.P5 and photographs Mark P7 to Mark P20. These documents are material piece of evidence and defendant endant No. 1 stated in his written statement that these documents are forged and fabricated, but no evidence has been led by the defendant to prove these documents as forged and fabricated. Rather, these documents have been duly proved by plaintiff and def defendant No. 1 has failed to rebut the facts regarding the marriage of Paramjit Singh with Sukhmohinder Kaur and plaintiff being daughter of Paramjit Singh, which has been duly proved by the plaintiff with the support of these documentary evidence. Further p plaintiff in order to corroborate her relations with Paramjit Singh and defendant No. 4 has placed on record a Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 09 which is marked as Ex.P39 and perusal of the same reveals that in column No. 8 of the Jamabandi a mutation No. 421855 of deceased Paramjit Singh son of Bahal 11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 12 of 18 Singh was sanctioned in favour of Sukhmohinder Kaur being widow and Parminder Kaur being daughter on dated 28.03.2013. When Ld. counsel for the plaintiff had put specific question regarding this mutation to defenda defendant Birdevinder Singh, during his cross-examination, examination, then he simply stated that he does not know whether the mutation of Paramjit Singh regarding the shop at Malerkotla was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 or not. Immediately, he stated ated in his cross cross-examination that now he want to challenge the said mutation No. 42185 which is sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4. It is very strange that defendant No. 1 till date has not challenged this mutation regarding the pro property of his pre-deceased brother in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant No. 4 despite acknowledge that his deceased brother Paramjit Singh has a shop at Malerkotla. Further defendant Birdevinder Singh when appeared in the witness box as DW DW-6 stated in his cross-examination examination that his brother Paramjit Singh was owner of a shop at Malerkotla. It seems that he is well aware of the fact that a shop was owned by his brother Paramjit Singh at Malerkotla, Then question arised that why he did not take any step to challenge the mutation No. 42185 which was sanctioned in favour of Parminder Kaur being daughter of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur defendant No. 4 being widow. This conduct of defendant No. 1 further corroborate the stand of the plaintiff that she is daughter of deceased Paramjit Singh and defendant No. 4 is widow of Paramjit Singh. Further DW DW-6 defendant Birdevinder Singh stated in his cross cross-examination that he cannot tell whether his brother Paramjit Singh was married with defendant No. 4 or not. This statement further is 12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 13 of 18 contrary to the stand of defendant Birdevinder Singh that Paramjit Singh was unmarried and issueless. Further DW DW-6 in his cross-examination examination stated that he does not know whether Paramjit Singh Deol solemnized his marriage with Sukhmohinder hmohinder Kaur on 24.01.1981. He further stated in his cross-examination examination that he does not know whether Parminder Kaur plaintiff was born from the wedlock of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur on 01.01.1982. He further stated in his cross-examination that he does not know whether the marriage of Paramjit Singh with Sukhmohinder Kaur was registered on dated 28.01.1981. So, this statement of defendant Birdevinder Singh in cross cross-examination indicating and corroborating the stand of the plaintiff that she is daughter aughter of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh and defendant No. 4 is. widow of Paramjit Singh. As such, the evidence produced by the plaintiff and cross cross-examination of defendant No. 1 Birdevinder Singh have proved that plaintiff Parminder Kaur is daughter off Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh and defendant No. 4 Sukhmohinder Kaur is widow of Paramjit Singh and plaintiff Parminder Kaur was born out of the wedlock of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur, All the evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove her rrelations with Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur have been remained unrebutted."
20. I am in complete agreement with the above said reasoning and view taken by the learned trial court, and duly affirmed by the learned 1st Appellate Court.
21. The defendant no.1 has further claimed title to the suit property on the basis of Will dated 22.11.1995 allegedly executed in his 13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 14 of 18 favour by Bahal Singh. However, admittedly, the said Will was cancelled by Bahal Singh by way of cancellation deed No.178 date dated 14.10.1998 (Ex.46).
This cancellation deed has been admitted by the defendants' own witness DW5 in his cross-examination.
cross In this regard, the relevant findings of the learned trial court are contained in the following para 15 of the judgment dated02.07.2 02.07.2018.
15. Now question arised whether plaintiff being daughter "15.
and defendant No. 4 being widow of Paramjit Singh are entitled the share out of the property of Bahal Singh or not. In the present suit, defendant No. 1 has taken a plea that Bahal Singh executed ed a registered Will dated 22.11.1995 in his favour and burden to prove this fact was on defendant and in order to discharge this burden, defendant got examined Bhupinder Singh Deed Writer, who wrote a Will dated 22.11.1995 which was executed by Bahal Sing Singh in favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh. Defendant further got examined DW-33 Nirmal Singh and other marginal witness NumberdarKaram Singh as DW DW-4 to prove the Will dated 22.11.1995 which was executed by Bahal Singh in favour of Birdevinder Singh. Original al Will Ex. P1 has been placed on record and proved by defendant with the help of DW DW-1, DW-3 and DW-4.
4. On the other hand, plaintiff has placed on record a cancellation deed dated 14.10.1998 which is marked as Ex.46.
Perusal of this cancellation deed No. 17178 dated 14.10.1998 reveals that Bahal Singh has cancelled his registered Will dated 22.11.1995 vide this cancellation deed and note regarding the cancellation of the Will dated 22.11.1995 has been given on the copy of the Will which was produced by the defendant's endant's own witness i.e. DW DW-5 Sanjiv Kumar and the copy 14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 15 of 18 of the same has been marked as Ex.P1, So, in view of the cancellation deed dated 14.10.1998 Will dated 22.11.1995 which was executed by Bahal Singh in favour of Birdevinder Singh was cancelled. Copy of the said cancellation deed is exhibited as Ex.P46 and the same even has been admitted by the defendant's own witness DW DW-5 in his cross-examination.
Therefore, it means that the mutation which was sanctioned on the basis of Will dated 22.11.1995 in favou favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh has no existence in the eyes of Law and the same is illegal, null and void. It means that out of the property of Bahal Singh, plaintiff and defendant No. 4 have 1/5 share. Further it is admitted fact that mutation of the property operty of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh was sanctioned in favour of his mother Dalip Kaur vide mutation No. 11587 on the basis that Paramjit Singh was unmarried and issueless. But the evidence on record produced by the plaintiff have proved that Paramjit it Singh did not die unmarried and issueless, rather he left behind plaintiff Parminder Kaur and defendant No. 4 as his legal heirs and being a widow and daughter they are also entitled 2/3 share out of the property of Paramjit Singh. It means that mutatio mutation No. 11587 which was sanctioned in favour of Dalip Kaur on the basis that Paramjit Singh was unmarried and issueless is illegal, null and void. Hence, Dalip Kaur was entitled only 1/3 share out of the property of Paramjit Singh. So, the mutation No. 11587 sanctioned in favour of Dalip Kaur regarding the property of Paramjit Singh is illegal, null and void to the extent of 2/3 share of plaintiff and defendant No. 4. Further defendant No. 1 has taken a plea that Dalip Kaur also executed a Will dated 17.11.2000 00 in his favour and in order to prove this fact, defendant placed on record original Will which was executed 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 16 of 18 by Dalip Kaur in his favour and the same is marked as Ex.D3. In order to prove this Will, defendant also got examined one of the marginal witness of the Will namely NumberdarMaghar Singh as DW DW-2. This witness in his affidavit specifically stated that Will dated 17.11.2000 was executed by Dalip Kaur and the same was written by Raj Kumar Singla Deed Writer on the instructions of Dalip Kaur. He further stated that Dalip Kaur affixed her thumb impressions on the said Will after admitting the same as correct. Thereafter, being a marginal witness of the said Will, he also signed the same. Accordingly, the will dated 17.11.2000 executed by Dalip Kaur in fav favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh has been duly proved by its marginal witness DW-22 Maghar Singh. Moreover, this will is a registered document and original of the same has been placed on record and the same is marked as Ex.D3. Further plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence which shows that this Will is forged and fabricated or was not executed by Dalip Kaur in favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh. AS such, on the basis of this Will defendant Birdevinder Singh is entitled the property of Dalip Kaur. How However, it is made clear that Dalip Kaur got sanctioned mutation No. 11587 regarding the inheritance of Paramjit Singh in her favour and the same has been declared illegal, null and void to the extent of 2/3 share of plaintiff and defendant No. 4. Thus, keep keeping in view of this fact ownership of Dalip Kaur is reduced to the extent of 2/3 share from the property which was sanctioned in her favour vide mutation No. 11587. As such, mutation No, 11718 11718-A sanctioned in favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh on the basis sis of Will dated 17.11.2000 is also declared illegal, null and void to the extent of 2/3 share of the property which 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 17 of 18 was inherited by Dalip Kaur from his son Paramjit Singh vide mutation No. 11587. Thus, keeping in view of these facts issues No. 1, 3 and 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue No. 2 is decided partially in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 4 and partially in favour of defendant No. 1 Birdevinder Singh to the extent that he is entitled the property of Dalip Kaur on the basis of Will dated 17.11.2000."
22. As regards the argument raised on behalf of the defendant No.1 that plaintiff being a Canadian citizen cannot claim inheritance on the basis of documents which are per se not proved. As already noted above, this ground was not raised by the appellant before the ld. Courts below. Nonetheless, in this regard, reference referencemay be made to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "B.C. Singh (D) By Lrs. Vs. J.M. Utarid (D) By Lrs." Law Finder Doc ID # 1030786 1030786, wherein it is held as under:
"9.
9. Dr. S.L. Singh died on 20.3.1976 without leaving any issue. It is not disputed that Ida Utarid is the real sister of Dr. S.L. Singh. According to the admitted pedigree, M. Utarid had two sons, namely, Dr. M.B. Utarid and NazirUtarid. NazirUtarid had two daughters, namely, Dr. S.L. Singh (wife of the original plaintiff) and Ida Utarid. J.M. Utarid (defendant No.1) is the son of E. Udarid and grandson of Dr. M.B. Utarid. Dr. S.L. Singh is admittedly an Indian Christian. Therefore, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') would be applicable to the succession of the property left by her. This Act does not bar the succession of property of an any Indian Christian by a person who is not an Indian national. There is no prohibition 17 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016082 Page 18 of 18 for succession of the property in India by a foreign national by inheritance."
(Emphasis added)
23. For the afore-noted noted reasons I find no ground is made out to interfere in the well-reasoned well reasoned judgments of the ld. Courts below.
The present appeal accordingly, stands dismissed.
24. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
03.02.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 06-02-2025 23:30:56 :::