Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1337 (PNJ)

Sadhu Singh v. Bhagat Singh

2005-12-30

B.K.SRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER B.K. Srivastava, FC. - These are two set of revision petitions relating to mutation No. 607 of village Manpur, Tehsil Khamanon. The land in question belonged to one Kehar Singh who vide registered will dated 25.6.63, bequeathed life estate (limited to lifetime) to his widowed daughter, Tej Kaur, and absolute succession in equal share to his four sons namely, Sadhu Singh, Modan Singh, Ajaib Singh and Harnek Singh. This will stipulated that the property would go to the four sons after the death of Tej Kaur, and if any of the sons died unmarried, his portion will go to the other brothers. 2. Two events have complicated this succession. Firstly, Tej Kaur executed registered will dated 16.9.83 in favour of her sisters son, Dalbara Singh despite the fact that she had actually no right to execute this will as she was not an absolute owner and her rights were non-transferable. Dalbara Singh, her legatee is the present petitioner in ROR No. 559 of 2005. The second event was that two sons of the deceased, Kehar Singh, namely, Modan Singh and Ajaib Singh who died as bachelors executed registered wills in favour of their nephews Bhagat Singh and Jasbir Singh, sons of their brother Harnek Singh. The fourth brother, Sadhu Singh, who is petitioner in the other revision petition No. 515 of 2001 remained left out from inheritance of their share which should have been equally divided between the surviving brothers. The two deceased bachelor sons had no right to execute the will as their rights were also qualified and conditional as they had inherited the property with the aforesaid stipulation of the will. 3. As neither the will nor the capacity of the legator to execute the will is in doubt or challenge, the points to be considered relate only to interpretation of the will and enforceability of its provisions. I think, there is no doubt about interpretation of the stipulations and provisos contained in the will. As the beneficiaries of the will inherit as per the terms of the will without any independent claims for such inheritance they are bound by its terms. Tej Kaurs case is absolutely clear that she had no right to execute the will. Her legatee, Darbara Singh, the petitioner in ROR 559 of 2005 has no right. His revision petition is liable to dismissal. Tej Kaurs case is absolutely clear that she had no right to execute the will. Her legatee, Darbara Singh, the petitioner in ROR 559 of 2005 has no right. His revision petition is liable to dismissal. The two bachelor sons also did not have the right to repudiate the terms of their inheritance. It was not within their right to bequeath the property in favour of the heirs (sons) of one of their two brothers, ignoring the other brother, Sadhu Singh, the petitioner in ROR No. 515 of 2001. His petition is, therefore, accepted. The share of those two sons who died unmarried is to be divided in equal share between the petitioner and his deceased brother, Harnek Singh or his legal heirs, if he is dead. To be communicated. Petition allowed.