KARTAR KAUR AND ANR. versus MILKHO AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 29-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KARTAR KAUR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MILKHO AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 63. 
Will-Genuineness of-Challenged-Testator, by registered Will, 
bequeathed his property in favour of his sister depriving his widow and C 
daughter in toto--Testator conveyed property in favour of his sister's son 
by subsequent sale deeds-Trial Court found Will was shrouded with several 
suspicious circumstances and that sale deeds were handiwork of defendants 
as part of conspiracy-Trial court decreed plaintiffs suit for declaration 
that they were joint owners of property-First Appellate Court without 
dealing with some of the important suspicious circumstances which touched D 
root of the matter, reversed judgment and decree of trial court-High Court 
dismissed second appeal in limine-On appeal Held: Propounder failed to 
dispel suspicious circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and trial court 
justified in doubting genuineness of Will-Both Will as well as sale deeds 
formed part of conspiracy hatched by defendants to deprive plaintiffs of 
their rightful succession-Though trial court in absence of prayer for setting E 
aside sale deeds did not grant same, but technicalities could not stand in 
the way of rendering complete justice to parties while excersingjurisdiction 
under Arts. 136 and 142 by Supreme Court-Accordingly, Will and sale 
deeds not valid and binding on plaintiffs-Constitution of India, 1950, 
Arts. 136 and 142. 
The testator, by a registered Will, bequeathed his property in 
favour of his sister {Respondent No. I) depriving his widow and 
daughter {appellants) in toto. Subsequently, the testator executed sale 
deeds conveying the property in favour of his sister's son {Respondent 
F 
No. 2). The appellants filed a suit for a declaration that they were the G 
joint owners of the property in question. The trial court found that 
the sale deeds were !Jie handiwork of the respondents as part of the 
conspiracy to deprive the appellants of their rightful succession. 
Accordingly, the trial court decreed the appellant's suit. However, 
the trial court in the absence of a prayer for setting aside the sale 
deeds did not grant the same. The first Appellate Court without dealing H 
121 
• 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A with some of the important suspicious circumstances which touched 
the root of the matter, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial 
court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine. Being 
aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1 The trial Court was justified in doubting the 
genuineness of the Will and rendering a finding that propounder has 
not dispelled the suspicious circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Both the Will as well as the sale deeds formed part of a conspiracy 
hatched by the defendants to deprive the appellants of their rightful 
C succession to the estate of the deceased. [128-F, 129-E] 
Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, [1994] 5 SCC 135, Smt. Jaswant 
Kaurv. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Ors., AIR(l977) SC 74 and H Venkatacha/a 
Iyengar v. B.N Thimmajamma and Ors., [1959] Supp. I SCR 426, relied 
D on. 
Bindeshri Prasad and Anr. v. Mst. Baisakhi Bibi and Ors., AIR 
(1920) PC 7~, referred to. 
1.2. Though the trial court in the absence of a prayer for setting 
E aside the sale deeds, did not grant the same, but technicalities cannot 
stand in the way of rendering complete justice to the parties while 
exercising jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution 
of India. Accordingly, the Will and the two sale deeds executed by the 
deceased in favour of Respondent No. 2 are not valid and binding on 
F the appellants. [129-F, H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13390 of 
1996. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.94 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1638 of 1993 
B.S. Malik and Mahabir Singh for the Appellants. 
D.V. Sehgal, A.V. Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli and Atul Sharma for the 
H Respondents. 
KAR TAR KAUR v. MILKHO [VENKATASWAMI, J.) 
123 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
VENKATASWAMI. J. Leave granted. 
Heard counsel on both sides at length. 
Even at the outset we would like to express our unhappiness over the B 
disposal of the second appeal in two words 'No merit. Dismissed' by the 
Punjab and Haryana High Court especially when the controversy related 
to the genuineness of

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