Dhanpat
Vs.
Sheo Ram

FACTS

  1. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he, along with his mother and his sisters were the owners and in possession of equal share of the suit land. He asserted that he belonged to the Jat community and was governed under the Punjab customary law.
  2. He further stated that his brother got a will dated 30 April, 1980 executed in favor of his sons from Chandu Ram. Such a will contravened Jat Community law and was a result of fraud and misrepresentation.
  3. The brother and his son are the beneficiary under the will, filed a common written statement and contented that the custom has been abrogated after passing of the Hindu Succession act, 1956 and that the Chandu Ram had separated all his sons during his life time and given sufficient amount to his daughters in the shape of dowry and other ceremonial and customary festivals.
  4. Similarly, sufficient land had also been given to the plaintiff in different village as mentioned in the plaint. There is no joint family. The will had been executed by Chandu Ram out of his natural love and affection and was without any inducement, fraud and misrepresentation.
  5. Chandu Ram accepted the facts of partition and the decree was passed. He had filed a suit for permanent injunction of the suit property that came into his share while the plaintiff was given almost 81 and half acres property in different villages.
  6. The defendant asserted that the properties mentioned were brought by him from his funds and he has all the right to sell. It was also submitted that the original will has been lost and he is not sure about the correct photocopy of the will.

HELD
Trail court
The trail court held that the Chandu Ram has separated his sons during his life time and settled his daughters. The court further held that, the will is duly proved on the basis of an attesting witnesses and the scribe. It was further submitted that the original will was lost and he is not sure about correct photocopy of the will and his wife also verified that he deprived her from the house and the court found it natural to execute will in the favor of beneficiary. Thus, court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

First appellant authority
The court dismissed the suit and held that the will had been executed by Chandu Ram in favor of the beneficiaries and was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances.

High Court
The defendant on the ground of suspicious circumstances filed an appeal before High Court. The court held that only one witness was produced, therefore, the will is not proved and the same is completely misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted. The court further held that there was no mention of his wife and the other son, hence, it brought some suspicion.

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the findings of the High Court were erred and the judgment runs on misconception of law and is therefore, not sustainable. The same is set aside and the decree of first appellant authority is restored and accordingly the appeal is allowed and suit is dismissed.