Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Appellants Failed to Prove The Genuineness/Existence Of The Will – Declared Null and Void: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement that may set a precedent in property dispute cases, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has declared an alleged Will dated 13.12.1973 as 'illegal and void'. The judgement was pronounced in the case of Narinder Singh @ Nidhan Singh and others versus Jasbir Singh and others, resolving a longstanding dispute over property inheritance.

The Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants, upholding the decisions of the lower courts, which had favored the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The appellants had contested the judgements and decrees dated 30.11.2015 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, and 17.11.2022 by the Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

A critical point in the judgement was the Court's observation on the alleged Will. The Court noted, "The validity and genuineness of the alleged Will executed by Hardial Singh were central to the dispute. The appellants failed to prove the genuineness/existence of the Will, leading to the conclusion that the Will was illegal and void."

The property in question, located in village Tangori, was subject to a mutation of inheritance based on the disputed Will. The Court's decision not only declared the Will void but also deemed the subsequent transfers based on this Will as invalid.

Highlighting the application of the Limitation Act in such cases, the Court observed, "There is no limitation for a suit for declaration based on title, and the cause of action arises from the date of knowledge of the mutation."

This ruling emphasizes the burden of proof on the appellants, as they were unable to produce the original Will or credible secondary evidence. Consequently, their claims were dismissed.

High Court stated, "The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration," thereby resolving a complex property dispute and setting a significant legal precedent.

Date of Decision: 12 January 2024

Narinder Singh @ Nidhan Singh and others VS Jasbir Singh and others 

 

Latest Legal News