DHARAM SINGH Vs. ASO
LAWS(SC)-1990-7-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 11,1990

DHARAM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
ASO Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GURRAM SATYASESHAAMBA VS. GURRAM KRISHNAVENAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2004-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAN CHETTIAR VS. AKILANDAM ALIAS SEETHALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-1997-3-146] [REFERRED TO]
MARAGATHAMMAL VS. SEETHA ALIAS MUTHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
DURAIRAJ VS. RATHINAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
GIANO VS. PURAN [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
D. VENKATAPATHY VS. D. JEGAPATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
BENGA BEHERA VS. BRAJA KISHORE NANDA [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-163] [REFERRED TO]
BHIM SAIN VS. KAUSHALYA DEVI ALIAS PREM LATA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR KAUR VS. KEWAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
BALWINDER SINGH VS. MOHINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-133] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN VS. BALDEV RAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
SARASAMMA AND ORS. VS. G. PANDURANGAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-208] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR KAUR VS. KEWAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-209] [REFERRED]
BAJ SINGH VS. GANGO [LAWS(P&H)-2001-12-159] [REFERRED]
DARBARA SINGH VS. HAZARA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1992-3-187] [REFERRED]
BHAGOBAI VS. HUMAN SATNAMI [LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-44] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against a concurring judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a second appeal. Special Leave Petition is directed against the separate judgment of the same High Court in a different Second Appeal. Parties are close relations. The dispute is over the validity of a will said to have been left by Santu in the year 1960 giving the entire residential house and 41/2 acres of agricultural land to the appellant by disentitling his two daughters who are entitled to share in the said property. The appeal relates to the agricultural property while the special leave petition relates to the house.
(2.)The two attesting witnesses did not support the execution of the will. The trial court relied upon the statement of the registering authority and on the basis of decisions of the Lahore and Punjab. and Haryana High Courts found that the will had been proved. The lower appellate court reversed the decision by relying upon two decisions of this court in M. L. Abdul Jabhar Sahib v. H. V. Venkata Sastri and Sons, (1969) 3 SCR 513 : (AIR 1969 SC 1147) and Beni Chand (since dead) now by Lrs. v. Smt, Kamla Kunwar (1977) 1 SCR 578: (AIR 1977 SC 63).
(3.)We have examined the record and are satisfied that the appellate Court and the High Court were right in their conclusion that the Registrar could not be a statutory attesting witness. Therefore, the conclusion that the will had not been duly proved cannot be disturbed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.