High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 18 18 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 Birdevinder Si er Singh RSA-821-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) Parminder Kau r Kaur & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advoc for the appellant. vocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** The contesting defendant dant No.1 is in second appeal before this Co is Court against the concurrent jud judgments and decrees of the learned Court ourts below whereby the suit filed filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1, seeking king a decree declaring the plaintif intiff and defendant No.4 to be owners and in d in joint possession out of the est estate of Bahal Singh s/o Bagga Singh to the e he extent of 1/5th share of the prope roperty as detailed in the plaint; and decree of e of permanent injunction restraini raining the defendant No.1 from alienating, mo , mortgaging, disposing of in any m ny manner any part of the suit property on th n the basis of impugned mutation, tion, has been partly decreed by the learned tr d trial Court vide judgment and de d decree dated 02.07.2018. The said decree w e was challenged by the defenda ndant No.1 before the learned Additional Dis l District Judge, Sangrur by way ay of Civil Appeal No.331 of 21.07.2018 w which was dismissed with costs osts vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.20 2.2022. Hence, the present second ond appeal. SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 2. The parties shall hereinaft Page 2 of 18 18 (cid:1) eir inafter be referred to as per their status before ore the learned trial Court i.e. the nt . the appellant as the ‘defendant No.1; contest ntesting respondent No.1 as the ma the ‘plaintiff’ and pro forma respondents N ts No.2 to 4 as the ‘defendants No.2 No.2 to 4’. 3. The brief facts of the he case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff tiff filed a suit for decree of decla eclaration declaring the plaintiff and defendan dant No.4 to be the owners and in d in joint possession out of the estate of Baha Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh to to the extent of 1/5th share of the suit prope roperty, on the basis of natural s al succession. The plaintiff also sought setting tting aside the mutation No. 11585 85-A sanctioned in favour of the appellant/defe
Legal Reasoning
defendant No.1 regarding the e e estate of Bahal Singh. The plaintiff furthe rther sought declaration that the p the plaintiff and defendant No.4 to be the own owners and in joint possession out out of the estate of Dalip Kaur widow of Baha Bahal Singh being the legal heirs of s of her predeceased son namely Paramjit Singh ingh on the basis of natural success cession and further setting aside mutation No. No. 11718-A sanctioned in favour o ur of appellant/ defendant No.1 regarding the the estate of Dalip Kaur widow of B of Bahal Singh. The plaintiff also sought a dec declaration that the plaintiff and and defendant No.4 to be the owners and in d in joint possession out of the est estate of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh so h son of Bagga Singh being the wid widow and daughter of Paramjit Singh on the the basis of natural succession. Se . Setting aside of mutation No. 11587 regardi arding the estate of Paramjit Singh ngh sanctioned in favour of Dalip Kaur widow o w of Bahal Singh was also sought. F ht. Further decree of permanent SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 3 of 18 18 (cid:1) injunction aga against the appellant/defendant ant No.1 qua the suit property was also sough ought. 4. The case set up by the pla plaintiff is that Bahal Singh son of Bagga Singh ingh was co-owner in the suit prop property mentioned in the head note of the p he plaint. Said Bahal Singh died on d on 22.1.2002, leaving behind Dalip Kaur w r widow, Birdevinder Singh-son son (appellant), Sarabjit Kaur- daughter, Rav Ravinder Kaur-daughter, and plaint laintiff and defendant No.4 being daughter and and wife of predeceased son of B of Bahal Singh namely, Paramjit Singh. Dalip Ka ip Kaur also died on 3.6.2003. 5. The plaintiff’s case was was that Sukhmohinder Kaur- defendant No t No.4 married Paramjit Singh i.e. s .e. son of Bahal Singh and Dalip Kaur on 24.1. 4.1.1981 and Marriage Registratio ration Certificate No. 1981 was issued. Out of of the wedlock of Paramjit Singh a gh and Sukhmohinder Kaur, one female child n ild namely, Parminder Kaur-plainti aintiff was born on 1.1.1982 at New Westmin tminster, Canada. According to the the plaintiff above mentioned Paramjit Singh ingh died intestate on 22.5.1982 a 82 at New Westminster Canada, leaving behind hind plaintiff and his mother Dali Dalip Kaur to be his only legal heirs. 6. After the death of Param aramjit Singh his share in suit property was was mutated in favour of his moth other. The plaintiff alleges that she had no kn o knowledge regarding sanctioning o ing of mutations prior to January 2013 and then then has filed the instant suit. The The suit has been filed through SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) her Special A ial Attorney Tejinder Singh son o on of Harcharan Singh Bajwa, Page 4 of 18 18 (cid:1) resident of Ho f House No.319, Dhakoa Road, Distr District Jalandhar, Punjab. 7. The defendant No.1 filed t led the written statement taking preliminary ob y objections. However, on merit de it defendant No.1 submitted that he had acquire quired title to the property in dispu ispute on the basis of registered sale deed date dated 22.11.1995 executed by abov bove mentioned Bahal Singh i.e. father of the the defendant No.1. Hence the su e suit property is self-acquired property of th f the defendant No. 1. 8. Defendant No. 1 further ther submitted in the written statement th that he had inherited the pro property of Bahal Singh vide registered Wil Will dated 22.11.1995 duly execut ecuted by Bahal Singh out of his self-acquired e red estate and mutation No. 11585/ 585/A was got rightly sanctioned in favour of de f defendant No. 1. 9. The defendant No.1 furthe rther submitted that the plaintiff and defendan dant Nos.2 to 4 have no concern ern with the revenue estate of Bahal Singh; and that the plaintiff and defend fendant No.4 have no concern or relation with ith Paramjit Singh i.e. son of Baha Bahal Singh. Said Paramjit Singh died in the yea e year 1982 in Canada before the de e death of Bahal Singh. Paramjit Singh never ca er came to India and his cremation tion was also held at Vancouver (British Colum lumbia), Canada. The defendant No t No.1 denied the relationship of plaintiff and d nd defendant No.1 with Paramjit S jit Singh. It was further alleged that the prese resent suit had been filed in conniv nnivance with Tejinder Singh by concocting a f g a false story just to grab the suit p uit property. Even the questions SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 5 of 18 18 (cid:1) were raised r d regarding the alleged power o er of attorney executed by the plaintiff in th n the name of Tejinder Singh. It It was also submitted in the written statem atement that the plaintiff and def defendant No.4 are not Indian citizens and ra ada. d rather they are citizens of Canada 10. The defendant No.1 s 1 submitted in the written statement tha that Dalip Kaur died on 3.6.200 .2003 and the defendant No.1 inherited the the property of Dalip Kaur on the b he basis of registered Will dated 17.11.2000, le , leading to sanctioning of Mutatio ation No.11718/A. 11. After completion of the p he pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed ed following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff and defe defendant No.4 are owners and in joint possession of the suit prop property? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle ntitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP. fo 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled titled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether defendant No.1 inh inherited the property on the basis of registered Will dated 22 d 22.11.1995 executed by Bahal Singh in favour of defendant No. 1 No. 1? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff intiff is not maintainable? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the pla e plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has not c not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has no s no cause of action and locus OPD. standi to file the instant suit? OPD 9. Whether the suit of the plaint laintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 10. Relief.” Page 6 of 18 18 (cid:1) 12. Learned counsel for defen efendant No.1 submits that the plaintiff is clai claiming title to the suit property rty on the strength of Power of Attorney in fav n favour of Tejinder Singh whom sh she has never met; and on the strength of d f documents (Ex.P1, P2 and P3) P3) (Annexures A1, A2 and A3 respectively ly before this Court), which do not not disclose that she is related with the fami family of the defendant No.1 in an in any manner. Learned counsel submits that at a bare reading of the document ents (Annexures A1, A2 and A3) shows that th t the plaintiff is not even disclosed osed to be daughter of Paramjit Singh; and tha that Paramjit Singh is further not not disclosed to be the son of Bahal Singh. gh. Thus, the plaintiff has not be been unable to establish her connection to to the estate of Bahal Singh in any any manner. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff intiff could not have been decreed b ed by the learned Courts below. 13. It is secondly contende nded by ld. counsel for the defendant No No.1 that there was a registe istered Will dated 22.11.1995 executed by B by Bahal Singh in favour of defend fendant no.1, and mutation No. 11585/A was was got rightly sanctioned in favou avour of defendant No. 1. It is further conten ntended that mutation No.42185 d 85 does not confer title on the plaintiff. Mor Moreover, the said mutation ha has been challenged by the defendant No. No.1 in a separate civil suit. 14. It is submitted by learned rned counsel for the defendant no.1 that the the plaintiff is a Canadian citizen. T en. The plaintiff has admitted in her cross-exam examination (Annexure A-4) that sh t she is not an Indian citizen and SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 7 of 18 18 (cid:1) even her mot mother is a Canadian Citizen. It is It is contended that the natural succession is g is governed by the Hindu Successio ession Act 1956 and it extends to whole of India India. The plaintiff and defendant n nt no. 4 being Canadian Citizens cannot claim im any inheritance under the Hind Hindu Succession Act 1956. It is submitted tha that a legal question which would uld require consideration by this Court is wheth hether a Foreign National can claim laim inheritance under the Hindu Succession Ac n Act 1956. It is however, admitted itted that the ground regarding inheritance ha e has not been raised by the defend fendant No.1 before the learned low. Courts below. 15. It is finally submitted tha that the present suit has been filed by the p he plaintiff when she was 32 year years of age on the strength of Power of Atto Attorney. Moreover, the plaintiff ha iff had married in July 2013 and the Civil Suit uit was filed on 14.10.2013 on th n the instigation of her in-laws. Defendant No t No.4/mother of the plaintiff has has re-married in 1990 and has not come for forward to claim inheritance at at any stage. Learned counsel further submi bmits that the suit of the plaintiff w tiff was not maintainable as she had sought a t a decree only for declaration an n and not for the consequential relief of posse ossession. The defendants are state stated to be in possession of the suit property rty at present. It is accordingly pra prayed that the present appeal be allowed an d and the impugned judgments and and decrees be set aside. No other argument is raise aised on behalf of the defendant 16. No.1. SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 17. I have heard learned coun counsel for the defendant No.1 Page 8 of 18 18 (cid:1) and perused th ed the case file in great detail. 18. The plaintiff has laid claim laim to the suit property on the basis of natur atural succession. The defendant N nt No.1 has contested her claim primarily on t on two grounds: a) that the plaintif intiff has claimed connection to the estate of of Bahal Singh on the basis of do f documents (Ex.P1, P2 and P3). Ex.P1 is the bi e birth certificate dated 01.01.1982 1982 of the plaintiff. It has been contended th that the said birth certificate d te does not bear the name of Paramjit Singh Singh/father of the plaintiff. Plaint laintiff has further relied upon certificate of m of marriage (Ex.P2) dated 24.01.1 01.1981 between Paramjit Singh and Sukhmoh ohinder Kaur. It has been contend tended that even Ex.P2 does not show Paramjit mjit Singh as son of Bahal Singh. ngh. Plaintiff has further placed reliance on d n death certificate dated 22.05.198 1982 (Ex.P3) of Paramjit Singh. It has been cont contended on behalf of the defend fendant No.1 that even the said certificate of d of death does not show Paramjit S jit Singh to be the son of Bahal Singh. It has a as accordingly been argued that th at the said documents do not in any manner er connect the plaintiff to the he estate of Bahal Singh and therefore, she she cannot claim title to her share hare of the suit property on the ground of inhe inheritance. 19. I find no merit in the argu argument raised by the learned counsel for de r defendant No.1. A perusal of the d he documents Ex. P1, P2 and P3, shows the sa e same to be duly notarised by t by the competent authority in Canada. Need eedless to say, a presumption o n of truth is attached to such SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 9 of 18 18 (cid:1) documents. M Moreover, Ex.P2 which is the ma marriage certificate attested by the Notary Pu y Public of British Columbia which ich shows that the birthplace of Paramjit Singh ingh is mentioned as Benra, Sangru ngrur, Punjab, India. Further, this issue has bee been comprehensively and correct rectly dealt with by the learned trial court. Re Relevant part of judgment dated ated 02.07.2018 passed by the learned trial C ial Court is as under:- “13. Now the main dispute in t in the present suit is revolving around a question that wheth hether plaintiff is daughter of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Sin l Singh and defendant No. 4 is widow of Paramjit Singh or not. B ot. Burden to prove this fact was on the plaintiff and in order to dis to discharge this burden, plaintiff herself stepped into witness b ss box as PW-1 and deposed through her duly sworn affidavit davit Ex.PW1/A. In her affidavit, she specifically deposed that she she is the daughter of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh. She furt further deposed that defendant No. 4 solemnized marriage with ith Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh in Canada. She further s her specifically deposed in her affidavit that she was born out out of the wedlock of Paramjit Singh son of Bahal Singh and and Sukhmohinder Kaur i.e. defendant No. 4. Further in ord order to corroborate her oral testimony, she has placed on rec n record certified notarized copy of her birth certificate, certified f ied from Notary Public of British Colombia, as Ex.P1. Perusal of Ex. f Ex.Pl reveals that date of birth of plaintiff is 01.01.1982. Furthe urther perusal of this document reveals that same was issued on d on 03.02.1982 well before the arising of controversy in the prese present suit. Further plaintiff has placed on record a photocopy opy of marriage certificate of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinde hinder Kaur which is marked as Ex.P2. This marriage certificate is te is duly attested by the Notary SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 10 of 18 18 (cid:1) Public of British Colombia, Perusa rusal of Ex.P2 reveals that place of birth of Paramjit Singh Deo Deol is mentioned as Benra, Sangrur, Punjab, India and it is ad is admitted fact that Bahal Singh father of Paramjit Singh and defe fa defendant Birdevinder Singh are also resident of village Benra. Fu a. Further this document shows that the marriage was solemniz mnized between Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur on d n dated 24.01.1981 and this certificate was issued on 28.01.1 .01.1981. This document is also well before the controversy in y in the present case. Further plaintiff has placed on record cord certified copy of death certificate of Paramjit Singh whi which is marked as Ex.P3 and this document is duly attested ted by Notary Public of British Colombia. This certificate was iss s issued on 27.05.1982 which is also well before the controversy versy in the present case. The certified copies of these docum ocuments are copies of public documents. The certified copies pies of the public document of British of Columbia attested by t by the Notary Public, Barristers and Solicitor are persi-admiss missible and presumption is attached under section 78 (6) and ) and 85 of Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Punjab and Harya aryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1083 of 20 f 2000 case titled as Mehnga Singh and others Vs. Gurdial Si al Singh and others decided on 13.08.2003 held that a public blic document belonging to a foreign country can be proved by fo d by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof with a certificate cate either of a Notary Public or an Indian Consul or a Diploma lomatic Agent. Such document fulfills the requirements of Secti fu Section 78 (6) of Evidence Act, 1872. Further Punjab and Hary Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2547 of 1979 1979 case titled as Chanan Kaur alias Channo Versus Pakhar Sin r Singh and others decided on 03.09.2003 held that as per Regis Registration Act, 1908 Section 33 SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 11 of 18 18 (cid:1) General Power of Attorney made ade by a person residing outside India, duly authenticated by th y the Notary Public fulfill the requirements under Section 32 of 2 of the Indian Registration Act. It does not require registration in n in India, Its original or certified copy is admissible in evidence and e and attached with a rebuttable presumption of its valid execut ecution. Further Hon’ble Delhi High Court in S.A.O. Nos. 378 an 8 and 379 of 1987case titled as Rajesh Wadhwa Versus Dr. (Mrs (Mrs.) Sushma Govil decided on 27.10.1988 held that attestation tation of documents by Notary Public of a foreign country where here a seal of Notary is put on document, it is to be presumed umed that document has been attested by a competent Notary o ary of that country. 14. Further to corroborate thes these documents, plaintiff has placed on record other docum cuments i.e. landing paper of Paramjit Singh at Canada Mark ark P4, letter written by Bahal Singh Ex.P6, its envelop Ex.P5 an 5 and photographs Mark P7 to Mark P20. These documents are are material piece of evidence and defendant No. 1 stated in d in his written statement that these documents are forged and and fabricated, but no evidence has been led by the defendant to nt to prove these documents as forged and fabricated. Rather, t fo er, these documents have been duly proved by plaintiff and def defendant No. 1 has failed to rebut the facts regarding the mar marriage of Paramjit Singh with Sukhmohinder Kaur and plaintiff ntiff being daughter of Paramjit Singh, which has been duly prov proved by the plaintiff with the support of these documentary e ry evidence. Further plaintiff in order to corroborate her relation lations with Paramjit Singh and defendant No. 4 has placed on r on record a Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 which is marked as ed as Ex.P39 and perusal of the same reveals that in column N n No. 8 of the Jamabandi a mutation No. 42185 of deceased sed Paramjit Singh son of Bahal SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 12 of 18 18 (cid:1) Singh was sanctioned in favour o our of Sukhmohinder Kaur being widow and Parminder Kaur b ur being daughter on dated 28.03.2013. When Ld. counsel for l for the plaintiff had put specific question regarding this mutatio tation to defendant Birdevinder Singh, during his cross-examinat ination, then he simply stated that he does not know whether ether the mutation of Paramjit Singh regarding the shop at Ma t Malerkotla was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and d fa nd defendant No. 4 or not. Immediately, he stated in his cro s cross-examination that now he want to challenge the said mu mutation No. 42185 which is sanctioned in favour of the plaint laintiff and defendant No. 4. It is very strange that defendant No. 1 No. 1 till date has not challenged this mutation regarding the pro e property of his pre-deceased brother in favour of plaintiff as iff as well as defendant No. 4 despite acknowledge that his his deceased brother Paramjit Singh has a shop at Maler alerkotla. Further defendant Birdevinder Singh when appeared ared in the witness box as DW-6 stated in his cross-examination tion that his brother Paramjit Singh was owner of a shop at Ma t Malerkotla. It seems that he is well aware of the fact that a sho shop was owned by his brother Paramjit Singh at Malerkotla, The , Then question arised that why he did not take any step to challe hallenge the mutation No. 42185 which was sanctioned in favour vour of Parminder Kaur being daughter of Paramjit Singh gh and Sukhmohinder Kaur defendant No. 4 being widow. Th . This conduct of defendant No. 1 further corroborate the stand tand of the plaintiff that she is daughter of deceased Paramjit Si jit Singh and defendant No. 4 is widow of Paramjit Singh. h. Further DW-6 defendant Birdevinder Singh stated in his his cross-examination that he cannot tell whether his brother P her Paramjit Singh was married with defendant No. 4 or not. not. This statement further is SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 13 of 18 18 (cid:1) contrary to the stand of defend fendant Birdevinder Singh that Paramjit Singh was unmarried an d and issueless. Further DW-6 in his cross-examination stated that that he does not know whether Paramjit Singh Deol solemn lemnized his marriage with Sukhmohinder Kaur on 24.01.198 1.1981. He further stated in his cross-examination that he does n es not know whether Parminder Kaur plaintiff was born from the the wedlock of Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinder Kaur on 01.01 01.01.1982. He further stated in his cross-examination that he d he does not know whether the marriage of Paramjit Singh wit with Sukhmohinder Kaur was registered on dated 28.01.198 .1981. So, this statement of defendant Birdevinder Singh in c in cross-examination indicating and corroborating the stand o d of the plaintiff that she is daughter of Paramjit Singh son of on of Bahal Singh and defendant No. 4 is. widow of Paramjit Sin it Singh. As such, the evidence produced by the plaintiff and cros cross-examination of defendant No. 1 Birdevinder Singh have pro proved that plaintiff Parminder Kaur is daughter of Paramjit Sin it Singh son of Bahal Singh and defendant No. 4 Sukhmohinder der Kaur is widow of Paramjit Singh and plaintiff Parminder K er Kaur was born out of the wedlock of Paramjit Singh and S nd Sukhmohinder Kaur, All the evidence produced by the plaintif intiff to prove her relations with Paramjit Singh and Sukhmohinde inder Kaur have been remained unrebutted.” 20. I am in complete agree reement with the above said reasoning and and view taken by the learned tria trial court, and duly affirmed by the learned 1s d 1st Appellate Court. 21. The defendant no.1 has fur s further claimed title to the suit property on th on the basis of Will dated 22.11.19 1.1995 allegedly executed in his SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) favour by Baha Bahal Singh. However, admittedly, th ly, the said Will was cancelled by Page 14 of 18 18 (cid:1) Bahal Singh by h by way of cancellation deed No.1 o.178 dated 14.10.1998 (Ex.46). This cancellati llation deed has been admitted by t by the defendants’ own witness DW5 in his cro is cross-examination. In this regard, ard, the relevant findings of the learned trial c ial court are contained in the follow llowing para 15 of the judgment dated02.07.2 7.2018. “15. Now question arised wheth hether plaintiff being daughter and defendant No. 4 being wid widow of Paramjit Singh are entitled the share out of the prope property of Bahal Singh or not. In the present suit, defendant No. 1 o. 1 has taken a plea that Bahal Singh executed a registered Wi d Will dated 22.11.1995 in his favour and burden to prove this fa fa his fact was on defendant and in order to discharge this burden rden, defendant got examined Bhupinder Singh Deed Writer, iter, who wrote a Will dated 22.11.1995 which was executed ted by Bahal Singh in favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh. Defe Defendant further got examined DW-3 Nirmal Singh and d other marginal witness NumberdarKaram Singh as DW DW-4 to prove the Will dated 22.11.1995 which was executed ted by Bahal Singh in favour of Birdevinder Singh. Original Will Will Ex. P1 has been placed on record and proved by defendant w ant with the help of DW-1, DW-3 and DW-4. On the other hand, pla , plaintiff has placed on record a cancellation deed dated 14.10.199 0.1998 which is marked as Ex.46. Perusal of this cancellation deed deed No. 178 dated 14.10.1998 reveals that Bahal Singh has ca as cancelled his registered Will dated 22.11.1995 vide this ca s cancellation deed and note regarding the cancellation of the f the Will dated 22.11.1995 has been given on the copy of the Wil Will which was produced by the defendant's own witness i.e. DW DW-5 Sanjiv Kumar and the copy SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 15 of 18 18 (cid:1) of the same has been marked a ed as Ex.P1, So, in view of the cancellation deed dated 14.10.1 .10.1998 Will dated 22.11.1995 which was executed by Bahal Sin al Singh in favour of Birdevinder Singh was cancelled. Copy of th of the said cancellation deed is exhibited as Ex.P46 and the same same even has been admitted by the defendant's own witness DW DW-5 in his cross-examination. Therefore, it means that the mut mutation which was sanctioned on the basis of Will dated 22.11.1 .11.1995 in favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh has no existenc tence in the eyes of Law and the same is illegal, null and void. oid. It means that out of the property of Bahal Singh, plaintiff intiff and defendant No. 4 have 1/5 share. Further it is admitted itted fact that mutation of the property of Paramjit Singh son of n of Bahal Singh was sanctioned in favour of his mother Dalip Kau p Kaur vide mutation No. 11587 on the basis that Paramjit Singh w gh was unmarried and issueless. But the evidence on record prod produced by the plaintiff have proved that Paramjit Singh di h did not die unmarried and issueless, rather he left behind p ind plaintiff Parminder Kaur and defendant No. 4 as his legal hei l heirs and being a widow and daughter they are also entitled 2/ ed 2/3 share out of the property of Paramjit Singh. It means that that mutation No. 11587 which was sanctioned in favour of Da f Dalip Kaur on the basis that Paramjit Singh was unmarried an d and issueless is illegal, null and void. Hence, Dalip Kaur was entitl entitled only 1/3 share out of the property of Paramjit Singh. So, . So, the mutation No. 11587 sanctioned in favour of Dalip Kau Kaur regarding the property of Paramjit Singh is illegal, null and ll and void to the extent of 2/3 share of plaintiff and defendant N ant No. 4. Further defendant No. 1 has taken a plea that Dalip Kau Kaur also executed a Will dated 17.11.2000 in his favour and in nd in order to prove this fact, defendant placed on record origin original Will which was executed SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 16 of 18 18 (cid:1) by Dalip Kaur in his favour and th nd the same is marked as Ex.D3. In order to prove this Will, defend efendant also got examined one of s the marginal witness of the Will namely NumberdarMaghar Singh as D as DW-2. This witness in his affidavit specifically stated that that Will dated 17.11.2000 was executed by Dalip Kaur and the the same was written by Raj Kumar Singla Deed Writer on the n the instructions of Dalip Kaur. He further stated that Dalip alip Kaur affixed her thumb impressions on the said Will af ill after admitting the same as correct. Thereafter, being a marg arginal witness of the said Will, he also signed the same. Ac . Accordingly, the will dated 17.11.2000 executed by Dalip K lip Kaur in favour of defendant Birdevinder Singh has been du n duly proved by its marginal witness DW-2 Maghar Singh. gh. Moreover, this will is a registered document and origin riginal of the same has been placed on record and the same i me is marked as Ex.D3. Further plaintiff has failed to lead any evi y evidence which shows that this Will is forged and fabricated or d or was not executed by Dalip Kaur in favour of defendant Bird Birdevinder Singh. AS such, on the basis of this Will defendant B ant Birdevinder Singh is entitled the property of Dalip Kaur. How However, it is made clear that Dalip Kaur got sanctioned mutati utation No. 11587 regarding the inheritance of Paramjit Singh in h in her favour and the same has been declared illegal, null and voi d void to the extent of 2/3 share of plaintiff and defendant No. 4. T . 4. Thus, keeping in view of this fact ownership of Dalip Kaur is r fa r is reduced to the extent of 2/3 share from the property which w ich was sanctioned in her favour vide mutation No. 11587. As su s such, mutation No, 11718-A sanctioned in favour of defendan ndant Birdevinder Singh on the basis of Will dated 17.11.2000 is a 0 is also declared illegal, null and void to the extent of 2/3 sha share of the property which SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 17 of 18 18 (cid:1) was inherited by Dalip Kaur from from his son Paramjit Singh vide mutation No. 11587. Thus, keep keeping in view of these facts issues No. 1, 3 and 4 are decided ided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue N ue No. 2 is decided partially in favour of plaintiff and defendant fa ant No. 4 and partially in favour of defendant No. 1 Birdevinder Si er Singh to the extent that he is entitled the property of Dalip Kau Kaur on the basis of Will dated 17.11.2000.” 22. As regards the argumen ment raised on behalf of the defendant No No.1 that plaintiff being a Can Canadian citizen cannot claim inheritance on e on the basis of documents whic hich are per se not proved. As already noted ted above, this ground was not ra t raised by the appellant before the ld. Courts urts below. Nonetheless, in this reg s regard, referencemay be made to judgment o nt of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “B “B.C. Singh (D) By Lrs. Vs. J.M. Utarid (D) By ) By Lrs.” Law Finder Doc ID # 103 1030786, wherein it is held as under: SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) “9. Dr. S.L. Singh died on 20.3.197 .1976 without leaving any issue. It is not disputed that Ida Utarid tarid is the real sister of Dr. S.L. Singh. According to the admitted tted pedigree, M. Utarid had two sons, namely, Dr. M.B. Utarid a rid and NazirUtarid. NazirUtarid had two daughters, namely, Dr. S. Dr. S.L. Singh (wife of the original plaintiff) and Ida Utarid. J.M. Uta . Utarid (defendant No.1) is the son of E. Udarid and grandson son of Dr. M.B. Utarid. Dr. S.L. Singh is admittedly an Indian Chr Christian. Therefore, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'th rt 'the Act') would be applicable to the succession of the property l erty left by her. This Act does not bar the succession of property o rty of any Indian Christian by a person who is not an Indian natio national. There is no prohibition Page 18 of 18 18 (cid:1) for succession of the property in In fo y in India by a foreign national by inheritance.” (Emphasis added) 23. For the afore-noted reaso asons I find no ground is made out to interfer erfere in the well-reasoned judgme gments of the ld. Courts below. The present ap nt appeal accordingly, stands dismis smissed. 24. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 03.02.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.02.06 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)