Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Brajabala Dhar And Ors. vs Nityamayee Biswas on 10 April, 1933

Surjitinder Singh (Decd.) And Ors. vs Smt. Jaswant Kaur on 12 March, 1975

Their testimony having been given after about 13 years, was consistent although discrepant in some minor details. Surjit Inder Singh did not know about the existence of the will after the death of his grandfather and he accidentally discovered it amongst his papers in August 1957 and then produced the same in Court. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that contrary to the will, S. Gobinder Singh had made alienations of his land and the estate at Simla, known as Kennilworth, during his lifetime, which showed that he had revoked the alleged will of 1945. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Brajabala Dhar v. Nityamayee Biswas, AIR 1934 Cal 17, the facts of which were, however, different. In that case, no will was found after the death of the testator and oral evidence was given that he had executed a will. It was also found that he had dealt with his property contrary to the contents of the will and on those facts it was held that the alleged will must have been revoked by the testator. In the present case the will was discovered and is in existence. Its execution and genuineness have been proved beyond any doubt it appears that Smt Dalip Kaur died in the lifetime of her husband, S. Gobinder Singh, and that Is why the estate known as Kennilworth, which was given to her for her maintenance and residence during her lifetime, was transferred in favour of Surendar Singh, minor son of his grandson Surjit Inder Singh. He made gifts of some land also in favour of third parties vide Exhibits PH, PK, PL, PJ, PU, PV, PW, PX, PZ, P.W. 5/A and P.W. 2/A but for that resason it cannot be said that he had revoked the will. According to the will Surjit Inder Singh was to be the owner of all his movable and immovable property found at the time of his death, and during his lifetime he had complete freedom to deal with his property in the manner he liked. If any property was left at the time of his death, the same was to be owned by Surjit Inder Singh. The gift vide Exhibit PH was made in favour of Smt. Amrit Kaur, wife of his grandson, Surjit Inder Singh while some land was transferred in favour of Surjit Inder Singh vide Exhibit PL. These alienations seem to have been made in 1953-54 because of the contemplated legislation providing for ceiling on land holdings. The mere fact of these alienations having been made by S. Gobinder Singh during his lifetime, does not cast any doubt on the genuineness of the will, nor can it be concluded that he had revoked it. He left considerable property on his death to his grandson. I, therefore, hold that S. Gobinder Singh had executed the will, Exhibit D. 1, according to which Suriit Inder Singh was entitled to all the property that was left on his death and Smt. Gulab Kaur had no right to any part thereof. She would have had the right to inherit 1/2 share of his estate, had S. Gobinder Singh not made the will, Exhibit D. 1. That will could not be challenged by Smt Gulab Kaur under the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920. Only male descendants or collaterals within five degrees could challenge the same. The will could be challenged only by Surjit Inder Singh or his son, but not by Smt. Gulab Kaur, widow of S. Gobinder Singh.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1