O&M) Alka Dhawan and another Alka Dhawan and another v. Sunil Dhawan and others Sunil Dhawan and others
Case Details
SAO-67- -2018 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Date of pronouncement SAO-67- .12.2025 pronouncement: 10.12.2025 -2018 (O&M) Alka Dhawan and another Alka Dhawan and another VERSUS Sunil Dhawan and others Sunil Dhawan and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate Present: Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate Present: for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Ms.Jasnur, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.4. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. HARKESH MANUJA, By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby Judge, Chandigarh, whereby Judge, Chandigarh, whereby Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the the the the judgment and decree dated judgment and decree dated judgment and decree dated judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Chandigarh garh was set aside and the case as set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh after affording two opportunities trial Court to decide the suit afresh after affording two opportunities trial Court to decide the suit afresh after affording two opportunities trial Court to decide the suit afresh after affording two opportunities
Legal Reasoning
for evidence to both the parties. each for evidence to both the parties. 2. Briefly stating, appellant No.1 being plaintiff filed a suit for Briefly stating, appellant No.1 being plaintiff filed a suit for Briefly stating, appellant No.1 being plaintiff filed a suit for ging the validity of Will dated 20.12.2001 with declaration challenging the validity of Will dated 20.12.2001 with ging the validity of Will dated 20.12.2001 with declaration challen SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.10 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO-67- -2018 (O&M) [2] respect to property bearing H.No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh, respect to property bearing H.No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh, respect to property bearing H.No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh, respect to property bearing H.No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh, allegedly executed by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan in favour of allegedly executed by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan in favour of allegedly executed by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan in favour of allegedly executed by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan in favour of defendants/ respondents No.1 and 2 defendants/ respondents No.1 and 2 a fraudulent by alleging it to be a fraudulent Admittedly, the parties happen to be closely related to transaction. Admittedly, the parties happen to be closely related to Admittedly, the parties happen to be closely related to transaction. law of each other. Plaintiff/ appellant No.1 is the daughter-in-law of each other. Plaintiff/ appellant No.1 is the daughter each other. Plaintiff/ appellant No.1 is the daughter deceased deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan being the widow of his pre-deceased deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan being the widow of his pre deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan being the widow of his pre son, namely, Sh. Ravinder Dhawan. Appellant No.2/ defendant No.3 son, namely, Sh. Ravinder Dhawan. Appellant No.2/ defendant No.3 son, namely, Sh. Ravinder Dhawan. Appellant No.2/ defendant No.3 son, namely, Sh. Ravinder Dhawan. Appellant No.2/ defendant No.3 ondent No.3/ defendant No.4 are the two daughters of and respondent No.3/ defendant No.4 are the two daughters of ondent No.3/ defendant No.4 are the two daughters of and resp deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan; whereas respondents No.1 and 2/ deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan; whereas respondents No.1 and 2/ deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan; whereas respondents No.1 and 2/ deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan; whereas respondents No.1 and 2/ law of deceased defendants No.1 and 2 are the son and daughter-in-law of deceased defendants No.1 and 2 are the son and daughter defendants No.1 and 2 are the son and daughter Tilak Raj Dhawan. Tilak Raj Dhawan. 3. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated while 0.03.2014 decreed the suit filed by appellant No.1/ plaintiff while 0.03.2014 decreed the suit filed by appellant No.1/ plaintiff 10.03.2014 decreed the suit filed by appellant No.1/ plaintiff discarded the Will dated 20.12.2001, primarily on the ground that the discarded the Will dated 20.12.2001, primarily on the ground that the discarded the Will dated 20.12.2001, primarily on the ground that the discarded the Will dated 20.12.2001, primarily on the ground that the same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and resultantly, same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and resultantly, same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and resultantly, same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and resultantly, appellant No.1/ plaintiff was held entitled for 1/4th share out of the share out of the appellant No.1/ plaintiff was held entitled for 1/4 appellant No.1/ plaintiff was held entitled for 1/4 subject property i.e. House No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh on the subject property i.e. House No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh on the subject property i.e. House No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh on the subject property i.e. House No. 627, Sector 36B, Chandigarh on the basis of natural succession. Further, defendant No.5/ respondent basis of natural succession. Further, defendant No.5/ respondent basis of natural succession. Further, defendant No.5/ respondent basis of natural succession. Further, defendant No.5/ respondent No.4 was restrained from transferring the property in question on the No.4 was restrained from transferring the property in question on the No.4 was restrained from transferring the property in question on the No.4 was restrained from transferring the property in question on the he beneficiary i.e. respondent No.1/ basis of said Will, in the name of the beneficiary i.e. respondent No.1/ he beneficiary i.e. respondent No.1/ basis of said Will, defendant No.1. defendant No.1. 4. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014, Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014, Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014, respondents No.1 and 2 filed first appeal along with an application respondents No.1 and 2 filed first appeal along with an application respondents No.1 and 2 filed first appeal along with an application respondents No.1 and 2 filed first appeal along with an application SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.10 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO-67- -2018 (O&M) [3] seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of one seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of one seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of one seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of one ated 08.05.1995 registered at Police Station Sector 36, DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 registered at Police Station Sector 36, ated 08.05.1995 registered at Police Station Sector 36, DDR No.6 d registered on the application Chandigarh, which was allegedly got registered on the application Chandigarh, which was allegedly got Chandigarh, which was allegedly got by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan complaining about the made by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan complaining about the by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan complaining about the by deceased Sh.Tilak Raj Dhawan complaining about the misbehavior of appellant No.1/ plaintiff with him. Finding the said misbehavior of appellant No.1/ plaintiff with him. Finding the said misbehavior of appellant No.1/ plaintiff with him. Finding the said misbehavior of appellant No.1/ plaintiff with him. Finding the said nt to be relevant for the purposes of determination of the document to be relevant for the purposes of determination of the nt to be relevant for the purposes of determination of the nt to be relevant for the purposes of determination of the issue issue issue issue regarding genuineness of regarding genuineness of regarding genuineness of regarding genuineness of the Will dated 20.12.2001; the Will dated 20.12.2001; the Will dated 20.12.2001; the Will dated 20.12.2001; concerning the relationship between appellant No.1/ plaintiff and the concerning the relationship between appellant No.1/ plaintiff and the concerning the relationship between appellant No.1/ plaintiff and the concerning the relationship between appellant No.1/ plaintiff and the irst Appellate Court allowed the said deceased testator, the learned first Appellate Court allowed the said irst Appellate Court allowed the said deceased testator, application vide order dated 23.03.2018 while setting aside the application vide order dated 23.03.2018 while setting aside the application vide order dated 23.03.2018 while setting aside the application vide order dated 23.03.2018 while setting aside the thereby judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court thereby judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court the matter back for its fresh adjudication. It was also remanding the matter back for its fresh adjudication. It was also the matter back for its fresh adjudication. It was also remanding as it ded that though the learned Trial Court discarded the Will as it ded that though the learned Trial Court discarded the Will recorded that though the learned Trial Court discarded the Will contained thumb impression of the testator, however, it did not contained thumb impression of the testator, however, it did not contained thumb impression of the testator, however, it did not contained thumb impression of the testator, however, it did not consider the other material document produced by defendants No.1 consider the other material document produced by defendants No.1 consider the other material document produced by defendants No.1 consider the other material document produced by defendants No.1 and 2 which were thumb marked by the testator. Besides it, the and 2 which were thumb marked by the testator. Besides it, the and 2 which were thumb marked by the testator. Besides it, the and 2 which were thumb marked by the testator. Besides it, the learned learned irst Appellate Court also noticed first Appellate Court also noticed that that the the issue issue of maintainability of suit was also required to be adjudicated upon by the maintainability of suit was also required to be adjudicated upon by the maintainability of suit was also required to be adjudicated upon by the maintainability of suit was also required to be adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal came to be learned trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal came to be learned trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal came to be learned trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal came to be filed. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that of respondents No.1 and 2/ there was an inordinate delay on the part of respondents No.1 and 2/ there was an inordinate delay on the part there was an inordinate delay on the part defendants No.1 and 2 in filing application for additional evidence and defendants No.1 and 2 in filing application for additional evidence and defendants No.1 and 2 in filing application for additional evidence and defendants No.1 and 2 in filing application for additional evidence and SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.10 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO-67- -2018 (O&M) [4] that too at the appellate stage. He submits that the alleged DDR was that too at the appellate stage. He submits that the alleged DDR was that too at the appellate stage. He submits that the alleged DDR was that too at the appellate stage. He submits that the alleged DDR was got registered in the year 1995; whereas the application for seeking got registered in the year 1995; whereas the application for seeking got registered in the year 1995; whereas the application for seeking got registered in the year 1995; whereas the application for seeking additional evidence was filed only in the first permission to lead additional evidence was filed only in the first additional evidence was filed only in the first permission to lead appeal in the year 2014, i.e. after a gap of 19/20 years. He also appeal in the year 2014, i.e. after a gap of 19/20 years. He also appeal in the year 2014, i.e. after a gap of 19/20 years. He also appeal in the year 2014, i.e. after a gap of 19/20 years. He also points out that even if it was assumed that the DDR dated 08.05.1995 points out that even if it was assumed that the DDR dated 08.05.1995 points out that even if it was assumed that the DDR dated 08.05.1995 points out that even if it was assumed that the DDR dated 08.05.1995 was entered at the instance of deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan against was entered at the instance of deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan against was entered at the instance of deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan against was entered at the instance of deceased Tilak Raj Dhawan against t No.1/ plaintiff, the same was merely on account of, normal appellant No.1/ plaintiff, the same was merely on account of, normal t No.1/ plaintiff, the same was merely on account of, normal t No.1/ plaintiff, the same was merely on account of, normal considered as a wear and tear in the family and thus was not to considered as a wear and tear in the family and thus wear and tear in the family and thus No.1 reason or justification by the testator to disentitle the appellant No.1 reason or justification by the testator to disentitle the appellant reason or justification by the testator to disentitle the appellant ary value estate and thus the said DDR was having no evidentiary value estate and thus the said DDR was having no evidenti of his estate and thus the said DDR was having no evidenti in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that the parameters seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the parameters seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the parameters seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the parameters seeking permission to lead additional evidence in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were not fulfilled and as such the terms of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were not fulfilled and as such the terms of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were not fulfilled and as such the terms of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were not fulfilled and as such the ed counsel also remand order was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel also remand order was liable to be set aside. Learn remand order was liable to be set aside. Learn contends that in case the learned first Appellate Court was convinced contends that in case the learned first Appellate Court was convinced contends that in case the learned first Appellate Court was convinced contends that in case the learned first Appellate Court was convinced about the relevance of DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 as a piece of about the relevance of DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 as a piece of about the relevance of DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 as a piece of about the relevance of DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 as a piece of evidence, a report could have been called for in this regard material evidence, a report could have been called for in this regard evidence, a report could have been called for in this regard material ts proof, rather than setting aside from the learned trial Court about its proof, rather than setting aside ts proof, rather than setting aside from the learned trial Court about i the decree passed by the trial Court in its entirety. He thus submits the decree passed by the trial Court in its entirety. He thus submits the decree passed by the trial Court in its entirety. He thus submits the decree passed by the trial Court in its entirety. He thus submits that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as instead of that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as instead of that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as instead of that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as instead of remanding the matter for fresh adjudication remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, the learned f first recorded findings on the points of Will in Appellate Court could have recorded findings on the points of Will in recorded findings on the points of Will in Appellate Court suspicious circumstances and also about question about the alleged suspicious circumstances and also about suspicious circumstances and also about question SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.10 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO-67- -2018 (O&M) [5] the maintainability of suit, based on the evidence already available on the maintainability of suit, based on the evidence already available on the maintainability of suit, based on the evidence already available on the maintainability of suit, based on the evidence already available on record. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf respondents No.1 and 2/ defendants No.1 and 2 submits that of respondents No.1 and 2/ defendants No.1 and 2 submits that respondents No.1 and 2/ defendants No.1 and 2 submits that the based on which the Will in question was suspicious circumstances based on which the Will in question was based on which the Will in question was suspicious circumstances discarded by the learned trial Court were majorly dealt with by the discarded by the learned trial Court were majorly dealt with by the discarded by the learned trial Court were majorly dealt with by the discarded by the learned trial Court were majorly dealt with by the to the first Appellate Court in the impugned order having recorded to the first Appellate Court in the impugned order having recorded first Appellate Court in the impugned order having recorded observed with contrary. He also submits that having prima facie observed with contrary. He also submits that having contrary. He also submits that having respect to the relevance of the document in question i.e. DDR No.6 respect to the relevance of the document in question i.e. DDR No.6 respect to the relevance of the document in question i.e. DDR No.6 respect to the relevance of the document in question i.e. DDR No.6 of Will about its dated 08.05.1995 and its effect upon the proof of Will about its dated 08.05.1995 and its effect upon the dated 08.05.1995 and its effect upon the first , a detailed speaking order was passed by the learned first , a detailed speaking order was passed by the validity, a detailed speaking order was passed by the Appellate Court which thus calls for no interference. Appellate Court which thus calls for no interference. Appellate Court which thus calls for no interference. 7. and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties book. I do not find substance on the submissions through the paper-book. I do not find substance on the submissions book. I do not find substance on the submissions through the paper made on behalf of the appellants. made on behalf o 8. Will established by A perusal of the record shows that the Will established by A perusal of the record shows that the respondent no. 1 was discarded by the learned trial Court due to respondent no. 1 was discarded by the learned trial Court due to respondent no. 1 was discarded by the learned trial Court due to respondent no. 1 was discarded by the learned trial Court due to suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The learned trial Court suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The learned trial Court suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The learned trial Court suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The learned trial Court n of the property in the found no reason for the unnatural disposition of the property in the found no reason for the unnatural dispositio found no reason for the unnatural dispositio no evidence presented by the Will or the records there being no evidence presented by the no evidence presented by the Will or the records beneficiary regarding any strained relationship between the husband beneficiary regarding any strained relationship between the husband beneficiary regarding any strained relationship between the husband beneficiary regarding any strained relationship between the husband of appellant No. 1 (the plaintiff) and the testator. However, the of appellant No. 1 (the plaintiff) and the testator. However, the of appellant No. 1 (the plaintiff) and the testator. However, the of appellant No. 1 (the plaintiff) and the testator. However, the ought permission to present respondents (defendants No. 1 & 2) sought permission to present respondents (defendants No. 1 & 2) s respondents (defendants No. 1 & 2) s SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.10 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO-67- -2018 (O&M) [6] and prove on record DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 by the testator and prove on record DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 by the testator and prove on record DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 by the testator and prove on record DDR No.6 dated 08.05.1995 by the testator against the plaintiff. The said evidence against the plaintiff. T , in the humble opinion of this evidence, in the humble opinion of this Court, is crucial to the case is crucial to the case in hand and would help the Court to in hand and would help the Court to reach at a fair conclusion, therefore, the learned first Appellate Court reach at a fair conclusion, therefore, the learned first Appellate Court reach at a fair conclusion, therefore, the learned first Appellate Court reach at a fair conclusion, therefore, the learned first Appellate Court additional granted the permission to lead the same as an additional granted the permission to lead the same as an rightly granted the permission to lead the same as an evidence. evidence. 9. Further, the learned first Appellate Court rightly remanded Further, the learned first Appellate Court rightly remanded Further, the learned first Appellate Court rightly remanded the matter to the learned trial Court i the matter to th nstead of giving the parties the e learned trial Court instead of giving the parties the or asking the learned opportunity to present their evidence before it or asking the learned opportunity to present their evidence before opportunity to present their evidence before trial Court to record the additional evidence and then submit its trial Court to record the additional evidence and then submit its trial Court to record the additional evidence and then submit its trial Court to record the additional evidence and then submit its report, as it , as it allowed defendant no. 1 and 2 to present their add itional allowed defendant no. 1 and 2 to present their additional evidence before the learned trial Court, giving the appellants (the evidence before the learned trial Court, giving the appellants (the evidence before the learned trial Court, giving the appellants (the evidence before the learned trial Court, giving the appellants (the plaintiffs) the chance to rebut it. Had the learned plaintiffs) the chance to rebut it. first Appellate Court Had the learned first Appellate Court requested a report from the learned trial Court on the additional requested a report from the learned trial Court on the additional requested a report from the learned trial Court on the additional requested a report from the learned trial Court on the additional ties would have lost their right evidence or tried it on its own, the parties would have lost their right evidence or tried it on its own, the par evidence or tried it on its own, the par to appeal the decision in the superior Court on the said issue to appeal the decision in the superior Court to appeal the decision in the superior Court on the said issue. Therefore, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court calls Therefore, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court calls Therefore, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court calls Therefore, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court calls for no interference. for no interference. 10. as rightly observed by Moreover, as rightly observed by as rightly observed by the the the learned learned learned first first first ourt in its impugned order, the learned trial Court failed to Appellate Court in its impugned order, the learned trial Court failed to ourt in its impugned order, the learned trial Court failed to Appellate C adjudicate on the material issue of whether the suit could be adjudicate on the material issue of whether the suit could be adjudicate on the material issue of whether the suit could be adjudicate on the material issue of whether the suit could be maintained in the absence of all the legal heirs of the deceased maintained in the absence of all the legal heirs of the deceased maintained in the absence of all the legal heirs of the deceased maintained in the absence of all the legal heirs of the deceased testator. This adversely affected the rights of the respondents testator. This adversely affected the rights of the respondents testator. This adversely affected the rights of the respondents testator. This adversely affected the rights of the respondents SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.10 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO-67- -2018 (O&M) [7] fendant no. 1 and 2). (defendant no. 1 and 2). 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal being devoid For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal being devoid For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is thus dismissed, however, considering the fact that the suit of merits is thus dismissed, however, considering the fact that the suit of merits is thus dismissed, however, considering the fact that the suit of merits is thus dismissed, however, considering the fact that the suit was filed by the appellants in the year 2004, the learned trial court is was filed by the appellants in the year 2004, the learned trial court is was filed by the appellants in the year 2004, the learned trial court is was filed by the appellants in the year 2004, the learned trial court is roceedings and conclude the same requested to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same roceedings and conclude the same requested to expedite the p fixed by affording preferably within six months from the date already fixed by affording preferably within six months from the date preferably within six months from the date to both the parties to lead their two effective opportunities each to both the parties to lead their to both the parties to lead their two effective opportunities evidence. evidence. 12 Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. .2025 10.12.2025 sanjay (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether reportable ? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.10 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document