KANWARJIT SINGH DHILLON versus HARDYAL SINGH DHILLON AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KANW ARJIT SINGH DIDLLON 
v. 
HARDY AL SINGH DHILLON AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
[TAR UN CHATTERJEE AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Succession-Grant of probate-Maintainability of suit 
thereafter-On strength of a will probate granted with respect to 
C properties left by testator-Suit for declaration that said properties 
were joint Hindu family properties-Civil court and High Court 
allowing preliminary objection that after grant of probate by competent 
probate court, suit was not maintainable-HELD: Functions of a 
probate court are to see that the will executed by the testator was 
D actually executed by him in a sound disposing state of mind without 
coercion or undue influence and the same was duly attested-It was, 
therefore, not competent for probate court to determine whether the 
testator had or had not the authority to dispose of the suit properties 
which he purported to have bequeathed by his will-Probate court is 
E also not competent to determine the question of title to the suit 
properties nor will it go into the question whether the suit properties 
bequaethed by Will were joint ancestral properties or acquired 
properties of the testator-Suit for declaration of title and injunction 
has been filed by the appellant inter alia on the allegations that suit 
F properties are joint family properties of HUF-It has also been claimed 
by appellant in the suit that by utilizing income from ancestral 
agricultural land, various properties including suit properties were 
acquired-Such being the allegations made in the plaint which can only 
be decided on trial after parties are permitted to adduce evidence in 
G respect of their respective claims, it is difficult to hold that only because 
probate of the Will has been granted, the suit for title and injunction 
must be held to be not maintainable in law-Judgments of the High 
Court as well as of the trial court are set aside-Trial court is directed 
to decide the suit after framing issues, including the issue of 
H 
368 
. 
) 
KANWARJIT SINGH DHILLON v. HARDY AL SINGH 
369 
:-. 'r 
DHILLON 
maintainability of suit after probate being granted, if not already A 
framed in the meantime, and dispose of the same expeditiously. 
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors., [1993) 2 sec 
507, relied on. 
Smt. Rukmani Devi & Ors. v. Narendra Lal Gupta, (1985] 1 sec B 
~ 
144, held inapplicable. 
r 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4890 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.2004 of the High Court c 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 3861/2002. 
Anil Nauriya and Sumita Haz.arika for the Appellant. 
., 
Pradeep Gupta, K.K. Mohan, Suresh Bharati, Gagandeep Singh 
' 
D 
Kandhari, Mithilesh Arya and Laxmibai for the Respondents. 
~ 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
1. Delay condoned. 
E 
2. Leave granted. 
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 
22nd of March, 2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.3861 of2002 whereby an order dated 
F' 
,._ 
-
18th of January, 2000 of the learned Civil Judge, Jallandhar, dismissing a 
suit for declaration and pennanent injunction of the appellant, was affirmed. 
4. Originally, the suit properties stood in the name oflshar Singh 
(paternal grandfather of the appellant) which was subsequently mutated G 
in the name of his two sons, S.H'.l?llfa Singh and S.Kirpal Singh. Late 
,.i 
S.Kirpal Singh was the father of the appellant. Late S.Kirpal Singh died 
' 
leaving behind some properties, both movable and immovable comprising 
agricultural land measuring 48 Kanai 10 Marlas situated at Jallandhar, a 
residential house bearing No.148, Sector 27A, Chandigarh and two 
H 
~ 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
deposits of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively [hereinafter referred 
-c 
~ 
A 
to as ''the suit properties"]. According to the appellant, the suit properties 
left behind by late S.Kirpal Singh were their ancestral properties. After 
eight years of the death of late S.Kirpal Singh, the respondent No. l 
propounded an unregistered Will left behind by late S.Kirpal Singh and 
B applied for probate thereof in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 
As per the said Will executed by late S.Kirpal Singh, the suit properties, 
both movable and immovable, were bequeathed by late S.Kirpal Singh 
... 
in favour of respondent No. I herein. Only a right of residence was given 
~ 
in favour of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.