SURINDER KUMAR Vs. GIAN CHAND
LAWS(SC)-1957-9-20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
September 24,1957
SURINDER KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
GIAN CHAND
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SURINDER KUMAR GOYAL VS. R N JAVERI [LAWS(DLH)-1979-1-15] [REFERRED]S R DUTTA VS. CHUNNI LAL BHATIA [LAWS(DLH)-1980-12-25] [REFERRED]
DEV RAJ BAJAJ VS. R K KHANNA [LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-97] [REFERRED]
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED VS. VIKRAM SINGH MEHTA [LAWS(DLH)-2001-3-31] [REFERRED]
HARI SINGH VS. GOVERNOR U P REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. LALIT VARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-129] [REFERRED TO]
A MONM VS. GOPINATH [LAWS(APH)-1998-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
KALIPADA SINHA VS. MAHALUXMI BANK LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1960-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
TINKARI DAS VS. JAMUNA BALA DASI [LAWS(CAL)-1973-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
METAL PRESS WORKS LTD VS. J K AND SONS [LAWS(CAL)-1978-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
GOPICHAND GUPTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1980-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA PRAMANIK VS. HARI SADAN SAHANA [LAWS(CAL)-1981-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY CHRONICLE COMPANY PRIVATE LTD VS. ITS WORKMEN [LAWS(BOM)-1959-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
USHA GHOSH VS. RABINDRANATH DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2005-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
A J K FERNANDEZ VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALSING NARANSING SIKH VS. NANIBAI WD O LAXMANBHAI KUBERBHAI SONI [LAWS(GJH)-1973-6-15] [REFERRED]
SUNDERLAL HAZARILAL VS. HAR PRASAD [LAWS(MPH)-1979-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
VASUDEO MAHADEO PARANJAPE VS. SUMAN ANANT PARANJAPE [LAWS(MPH)-1993-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
B MAHALAKSHMI VS. D V NAGALAKSHMI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1996-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
O SYED ABBAS VS. SREE SHYAM SAYI CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2001-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
LAJYA RAM KAPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1963-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
J G KOHLI VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-1975-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. KULDIP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1979-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANI DEVI VS. NARENDRA LAL GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-1984-9-5] [RELIED ON]
BALAI CHANDRA HAZRA VS. SHEWDHARI JADAV [LAWS(SC)-1978-2-45] [APPLIED]
SURESH CHAND MATHUR VS. HARISH CHAND MATHUR [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
VIBHUTI SINGH VS. DAMARI LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1977-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN BALA SAHA VS. BANKIM CHANDRA SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-1967-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPA SINDHU BISWAS VS. SUDHA SINDHU BISWAS [LAWS(CAL)-1973-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
M P MANIKANDA VS. K RAMAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-1985-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH NARAIN SINGH VS. F DEWAN CHAND NAND KISHORE [LAWS(P&H)-1959-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAWATI DEVI VS. RAMESHWAR KAVIRAJ [LAWS(PAT)-1968-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
RANVIJAYA SHAHI VS. BALA PRASAD MOTANI [LAWS(PAT)-1977-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH SINGH VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKER VS. TILAK RAJ SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-1988-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
ACCUMAC MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I [LAWS(CE)-2003-9-273] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS SINGH VS. SOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-1962-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS VS. ARJAN SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1971-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT RAM VS. KESHAB DEO [LAWS(GAU)-1964-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD VS. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS [LAWS(CAL)-2014-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
PARBATI PANDA AND ANR. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 3 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-10-57] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH BAINS VS. GURDEV KAUR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GYAN PARKASH BEDI VS. SHRI GURDIT SINGH AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-1971-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. MAYA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2012-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTE LAL MEWATI VS. DR. HARISINGH GAUR VISHWAVIDYALAYA [LAWS(MPH)-1997-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
PRIMELLA SANITARY PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS. GURUDAS VISHWANATH SINAI GAITONDE [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-264] [REFERRED]
KM MADHU JAIN VS. KUNWAR SNRAJ AVTAR AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-1981-9-104] [REFERRED]
AJIT SINGH VS. JASWANT KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-1963-8-36] [REFERRED]
GURDIAL SINGH, ETC VS. PIARA SINGH, ETC [LAWS(P&H)-1973-5-56] [REFERRED]
RAM CHANDER SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER FAIZABAD DIVISION [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
M. RAMAKRISHNAN (DIED) & ORS. VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2017-10-186] [REFERRED TO]
S.C.SUGUMARAN VS. S.RENUKA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
BMO TRUST COMPANY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal by Special Leave is brought from the judgment and decree of the High Court of the Punjab, dated 16th August 1949 reversing the decree of the trial Court which had decreed the plaintiffs' suit on a mortgage.
(2.)The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this appeal claim to be the legatees under a registered will of their mother's father Lala Guranditta Mal executed on 6th September 1944. One of the items bequeathed to them was the rights in a mortgage executed by the defendants in favour of the testator on 24th October 1932, for Rs. 60000. On 25th October 1944 they brought a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur for the recovery of Rs. 5392-2-0 on the basis of the mortgage.
They alleged that they were the "representatives and heirs" of Lala Guranditia Mal under the will and in their replication they just stated: "We are heirs and representatives of Lala Guranditta Mal mortgagee deceased" Inter alia the defendants pleaded that they had no knowledge of the will alleged to have been made by Guruanditta Mal and they denied that the plaintiffs were heirs and representatives of the mortgagee and therefore had no locus standi to sue. Five issues were stated by the learned trial Judge out of which the issue now relevant for the purpose of this appeal is the first one: (1) Have the plaintiffs a locus standi to maintain the present suit as successors-in-interest of Guranditta deceased
(3.)The learned Subordinate Judge held that the will "had the presumption of its correct execution" because it was registered and also that not obtaining the probate of the will was no bar to the plaintiffs obtaining a decree and passed a preliminary mortgage decree. On the matter being taken in appeal to the High Court the decree of the trial Court was reversed and the suit of plaintiffs dismissed but the parties were left to bear their own costs. The High Court held:
"It is thus clear that attestation by two witnesses was necessary in order to validate the will now before us. As this requirement of law has not been satisfied the plaintiffs had no locus standi to maintain the suit."
(2.)The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this appeal claim to be the legatees under a registered will of their mother's father Lala Guranditta Mal executed on 6th September 1944. One of the items bequeathed to them was the rights in a mortgage executed by the defendants in favour of the testator on 24th October 1932, for Rs. 60000. On 25th October 1944 they brought a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur for the recovery of Rs. 5392-2-0 on the basis of the mortgage.
They alleged that they were the "representatives and heirs" of Lala Guranditia Mal under the will and in their replication they just stated: "We are heirs and representatives of Lala Guranditta Mal mortgagee deceased" Inter alia the defendants pleaded that they had no knowledge of the will alleged to have been made by Guruanditta Mal and they denied that the plaintiffs were heirs and representatives of the mortgagee and therefore had no locus standi to sue. Five issues were stated by the learned trial Judge out of which the issue now relevant for the purpose of this appeal is the first one: (1) Have the plaintiffs a locus standi to maintain the present suit as successors-in-interest of Guranditta deceased
(3.)The learned Subordinate Judge held that the will "had the presumption of its correct execution" because it was registered and also that not obtaining the probate of the will was no bar to the plaintiffs obtaining a decree and passed a preliminary mortgage decree. On the matter being taken in appeal to the High Court the decree of the trial Court was reversed and the suit of plaintiffs dismissed but the parties were left to bear their own costs. The High Court held:
"It is thus clear that attestation by two witnesses was necessary in order to validate the will now before us. As this requirement of law has not been satisfied the plaintiffs had no locus standi to maintain the suit."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.