Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Prem Singh And Ors on 26 November, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA NO.4513 OF 2014 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 26th NOVEMBER, 2014
Avtar Singh
.... Appellant
Versus
Prem Singh & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
****
Present : Mr. Krishan Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
****
SURINDER GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM-10469-C-2014 There is delay of 9 days in filing this appeal. It has been submitted that appellant wrongly calculated the days for filing the appeal after receipt of certified copies resulting in delay in filing this appeal.
Due to the reason mentioned in the application delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA No.4513 of 2014
1. The appellant filed civil suit no.885 of 22.12.2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh seeking relief as follows:
"Suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant is absolute owner of 4 marla House No.643, Mohalla Gurdwara Mata Raj Kaur Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh by virtue of Will dated 19.4.1990 and that the Will dated 24.2.1998 allegedly executed by late Sh.Arjun Singh father of the defendant no.1 and grandfather of the plaintiff-appellant is invalid, null and RSA NO. 4513 OF 2014 (O&M) -2- void and got executed by misrepresentation and pressure and a further decree for permanent injunction restraining (sic) the suit property to the name of defendant no.1 on the basis of invalid Will dated 24.2.1998 and for a further decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.3 to transfer the suit property in the name of the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of registered Will dated 19.4.1990 executed by late Sh. Arjan Singh son of Sh.
Rulia Ram, last resident of House No.643, Mohalla Mata Raj Kaur, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh."
2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that his grandfather Arjun Singh had five sons namely Gopal Singh, Pritam Singh, Prem Singh, Santokh Singh and Jaswant Singh and a daughter Kamla wife of Rachhpal Singh. Arjun Singh was exclusive owner of the suit property. Father of plaintiff-appellant was sending money for maintenance of his grandfather, who expired on 22.07.1999. His grandmother Smt. Kartar Kaur had expired on 29.01.1997. During his lifetime Arjun Singh had executed a registered Will dated 03.07.1989 which he later revoked vide a separate writing dated 19.04.1990 and executed a fresh registered Will of the same date in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. By virtue of Will dated 19.04.1990 plaintiff- appellant became owner of suit property and after death of his grandfather he applied for transfer of the same in his name in records of the Municipal Corporation. Prem Singh uncle of plaintiff-appellant in his matrimonial litigation with his wife Manjit Kaur filed an affidavit in Hon'ble Supreme Court propounding registered Will dated 24.02.1998 alleged to have been executed by Arjun Singh in his favour. It also came to notice of the RSA NO. 4513 OF 2014 (O&M) -3- plaintiff-appellant that Prem Singh on the basis of forged Will was taking steps to get property of Arjun Singh transferred in his name from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The plaintiff-appellant had alleged that Will dated 24.02.1998 is an invalid document as the same was got executed under pressure and coercion. Arjun Singh had been living separate from his son Prem Singh since the year 1980 till his death. Earlier Prem Singh was residing with his wife Shanti as tenant in the property owned by plaintiff- appellant and his mother, which they tried to grab, resulting in filing of civil suit by the mother of plaintiff-appellant.
3. Prem Singh defendant no.1 in his written statement contested the claim of plaintiff-appellant inter alia pleading that after revoking Will executed in favour of plaintiff-appellant, Arjun Singh had executed a valid registered Will dated 24.02.1998 in his sound disposing mind. The present suit is counterblast to the suit filed by wife of defendant no.1 against mother of plaintiff-appellant titled as Shanti vs. Joginder Kaur and others. An ejectment petition was also filed by mother of appellant titled as Joginder Kaur vs. Shanti Devi and wife of defendant no.1 filed a criminal complaint against plaintiff-appellant, his mother, father and others. The matter was compromised on 26.08.2002. Arjun Singh was initially living with his wife in the suit property and later on started living with defendant no.1 and his family. In lieu of services rendered by defendants, Arjun Singh after cancelling Will executed in favour of plaintiff-appellant, executed registered Will dated 24.02.1998 bequeathing the suit property to defendants. RSA NO. 4513 OF 2014 (O&M) -4-
4. The suit of plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh with the observation that Will dated 24.02.1998 is a valid and genuine document executed by Arjun Singh in fit state of mind and as per this will defendant no.1 has become the owner of suit property. Not satisfied with judgment of the lower Court, Avtar Singh filed appeal before the Additional District Judge Chandigarh, which was also dismissed and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book with his assistance.
6. The dispute revolves around inheritance of property of Arjun Singh who was grandfather of appellant and father of defendant-respondent no.1 Prem Singh. In the year 1996 Arjun Singh had filed Civil Suit No.279 of 29.11.1996 which was also decided with the civil Suit No.885 on 22.12.2001 filed by the plaintiff-appellant. In the suit filed by Arjun Singh relief of injunction was sought against various persons including present appellant, claiming therein that Arjun Singh (since deceased) was residing in disputed house along with his wife Kartar Kaur. The appellant and others who were arrayed as defendants occupied the portion of the disputed property after breaking open the lock on 11.07.1993 in violation of the order of injunction issued by the Court of the then Sub-Judge, First Class, Chandigarh and the civil suit titled Arjun Singh versus Pritam Singh and others was decreed on 09.09.1995 and the possession of the ground floor was restored to Arjun Singh.
7. Prem Singh in order to prove the Will dated 24.02.1998 has examined Hakumat Rai PW-2, who identified signatures of marginal witness of the Will, Devinder Nath. S.S. Bains, Advocate PW-4 had drafted the Will RSA NO. 4513 OF 2014 (O&M) -5- under instructions of Arjun Singh and also signed the same as marginal witness. He proved execution of the will dated 24.02.1998 by Arjun Singh and also its registration before the Sub-Registrar Chandigarh. Sumit Kumar Arora-PW-5, Document Expert has examined thumb impression of Arjun Singh on the Will and compared the same with his standard thumb impressions on special power of attorney dated 12.11.1990, power of attorney dated 17.07.1993 and his statement dated 01.12.1993. On examination of disputed and standard signatures he gave the report that thumb impression on the Will tallied with specimen thumb impressions. Plaintiff-appellant himself appeared as PW-1. After detailed analysis of evidence produced by plaintiff, the trial Court and appellate Court reached the conclusion that defendant no.1 has been able to prove the validity and genuineness of the Will dated 24.02.1998 executed by Arjun Singh. It was also proved that there was litigation between Arjun Singh and present plaintiff-appellant pending at the time of execution of that will.
8. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that Arjun Singh was more than 77 years of age in the year 1998 as per his own admission about the age in the civil suit No.279 on 29.11.1996. Prem Singh defendant- respondent no.1 in his letter dated 30.07.1996 D-5/217 to his elder brother had described condition of Arjun Singh as an insane person. He had written in letter that 'Pita ji pagal ho chuke hai'. The learned counsel for appellant argues that above admission on the part of the propounder of the Will shows that Arjun Singh was not of sound mind at the time of execution of the Will dated 24.02.1998.
RSA NO. 4513 OF 2014 (O&M) -6-
9. The above evidence was discarded by the first Appellate Court on the ground that letter Ex.D-5/217 was not duly proved and is not supported by any credible medical evidence to prove unsoundness of Arjun Singh. Even otherwise the mere fact that Arjun Singh was aged about 75 years or more, is not an indicator, in the absence of any medical evidence, that his mental condition was not sound. Arjun Singh had litigation with his various family members including the appellant. He was a person who was very conscious about the devolution of his property. As per case of appellant himself he had earlier executed registered Will dated 03.07.1989 which he revoked vide registered writing dated 19.04.1990 and executed a fresh Will dated 19.04.1990 in favour of appellant. He again cancelled that Will and then executed a registered Will dated 24.02.1998 which he got scribed by availing services of an Advocate. This shows that he had sound disposing mind and had also filed suit to protect his property from his son Jaswant Singh, his wife, other sons Pritam Singh, Gopal Singh, Santokh Singh, appellant and other relatives.
10. The learned counsel for appellant has not been able to point out any legal or factual infirmity in finding of the Courts below calling for any interference. No substantial question of law requiring determination arises. This appeal has no merit.
11. Dismissed.
26th November, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA)
'raj' JUDGE
RAJ KUMAR
2014.12.24 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh