Jasjeet Singh v. Kuldeep Singh

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the

Jasjeet Singh Kuldip Singh (s

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Res

Vid MANDEEP PA

1.

Jasjeet Singh as learned Lower Singh was accep Brief Facts

2.

Singh. The case of the parties, w widower was sta him. It was stat savings when th THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

VERSUS ince deceased) through LRs ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Arshdeep S. Khaira, Advocate spondent Nos. 1(i) and 1(ii) proc de order dated 26.04.2024. -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appe ssailing the judgment and decre Appellate Court whereby the a pted and the suit for recovery and e dispute arises out of the estate e of the plaintiff before the trial C was residing in House No. 92, Se aying alone. The plaintiff, being ed that the house at Chandigarh he family was joint. According to

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1972-1997 (O&M) served on:-07.11.2025 onounced on : 01.12.2025 ploaded on:- 02.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellant

....Respondent DEEP PANNU for the appellant. ceeded against ex-parte eal has been filed by the appella ee dated 25.04.1997 passed by appeal filed by the plaintiff Kul d declaration stood decreed. e and movable assets of late Moh Court was that Mohan Singh, fat ector 21-A, Chandigarh and bein g in service, used to frequently v h had been purchased out of fam o the plaintiff, his son Hardip Sin

- ant– ldip han ther ng a visit mily

also used to stay 85 years of age influenced him house sold. Out in Punjab & Sin was withholding notice demandi according to him Chandigarh see amount, in whic also instituted plaintiff asserted estate of late Mo share. The appr money and utili declaration of ri

3.

asserted that the own savings af amount or ever had strained rel years. The defe disposing mind the house was Mohan Singh an y with Mohan Singh, and in 19 , started losing his mental balan with an ulterior motive and, kee t of the sale consideration, an am nd Bank, Phase -5, Mohali. The g information about the sale deed ing disclosure of the bank a m no reply was furnished. The eking mandatory injunction to ch an interim order was passed r a separate suit for mandatory d that the amount in the FDR a ohan Singh, who had died intest rehension expressed was that t ize the same, and, therefore, the ights in the FDRs and bank amou e defendant, in his written stat e Chandigarh house had been pu fter retirement. It was denied resided with Mohan Singh. Rath lations with the father and had ndant stated that Mohan Singh till three days prior to his death lawfully received and thereafte nd the defendant with instructio

988 when Mohan Singh, then ab nce, the defendant manipulated eping the matter concealed, got mount of ₹5,40,000/- was deposi plaintiff alleged that the defend d and the sale proceeds. He issue account and sale particulars, plaintiff had earlier filed a sui restrain disbursement of the b restraining the bank. The defend injunction against the bank. T and savings account constituted tate, and that he was entitled to h the defendant would withdraw suit for recovery of half share unts was filed. tement, denied all allegations urchased by Mohan Singh from that the plaintiff contributed her, it was alleged that the plain d not even visited him for seve was fully competent and of sou h and that the sale consideration er deposited in a joint account ons payable to either or survivor

- bout and ited dant ed a but it at ank dant half and and his any ntiff eral und n of t of

was further plea the defendant, w that the movabl It was asserted was aware that Will was claime

4.

Pla denying those o

5.

On following issues

¶1wit

2. FD

3.

¶4fee

5. OP

6. OP

7.

8.

Issu to its knowledg aded that Mohan Singh had exec while giving a portion of his Ja e estate including the FDRs had that the plaintiff had never appl the amount stood in joint names ed to be genuine and executed in aintiff filed a replication reiterat f the written statement. n the pleadings of the parties, t s:- Whether the plaintiff is entit th interest? OPP. Whether the plaintiff is enti DR in question? OPP Whether the suit of the plaint Whether the suit is not prope and jurisdiction? OPD Whether the plaintiff is enti PP Whether the plaintiff is ent PP Whether the defendant is ent Relief. ue No.2 was amended by the le ge that the plaintiff has not pray

cuted a registered Will in favour alandhar house to the plaintiff, d been bequeathed to the defenda lied for succession certificate as s payable to either or survivor. T sound mind. ting the contents of the plaint the learned trial Court framed tled to recovery of Rs.8,650/- alo itled to recovery of ½ share in tiff is not maintainable?OPD erly valued for the purpose of co

itled to the declaration prayed f titled to the injunction prayed f titled to special costs? OPD earned trial Court after it had co yed for recovery of ½ share in

- r of and ant. s he and ong ourt for? for?

FDR rather he h The amended is "W ent

6.

banks, medical circumstances a Findings of the

7.

that the plaintif withdrawn by th the joint names under the mand that the withdr plaintiff's plea belonged to a jo construction, ob material on reco property from h found no substa of unsound mind defendant had p the testimony o testator matched genuine and fre has sought the declaration that h sue is as under:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled t titled to ½ share in FDR in quest e evidence of both sides was rec l practitioners, and other wit and documents. e learned Trial Court e trial Court, on an appreciation ff had failed to prove any righ he defendant from the joint savin of Mohan Singh and the defend date of "either or survivor" and t awal was in accordance with that the sale proceeds of Hous oint Hindu family or that he had bserving that no documentary ev ord showed that Mohan Singh h his own savings, retirement ben ance in the allegation that Moha d or had been subjected to undue proved the execution of the regis of the scribe and attesting witn d with his admitted signatures. T ee from suspicion. The plaintiff

he is entitled to ½ share in the FD to the suit for declaration that tion? OPP" corded, including officials from tnesses familiar with the fam of the pleadings and evidence, h ht, title or interest in the amou ngs account or the FDRs standing dant, as the accounts were opera the bank officials had corrobora the rules. The Court rejected e No.92, Sector 21-A, Chandig contributed towards its purchase vidence was produced and that had purchased and constructed nefits and loans. The Court furt an Singh, aged about 80 years, w e influence, holding instead that stered Will dated 28.7.1988 throu ess, and that the signatures of The Will was, therefore, accepted f's reliance on the principle tha

- DR. his mily held unts g in ated ated garh e or ther was ugh d as

survivor of a joi Singh had not d Will bequeathi Consequently, t the amounts in d and dismissed th Findings of the

8.

held that the app perfunctory and not been duly serious doubt on the beneficiary close relatives a satisfactory reas estate of Mohan of the testator, th

21.12.1983, and Mohan Singh b Will were inco material to show Court further h proceeds, influ appropriating a a manner favou int account is only a custodian w died intestate but had clearly e ing the movable and immo the Court concluded that the pla dispute, that no ground for decla he suit with parties left to bear th e Lower Appellate Court e Lower Appellate Court, after proach of the trial Court towards d that the suspicious circumstan considered. The appellate Cou n the genuineness of the Will, in Jasjit Singh in getting the Will and interested persons as attesti son for excluding the plaintiff n Singh, the advanced age and fe he unexplained recital regarding d the failure to examine Jasbir Sin before the Sub-Registrar. It was onsistent with the admitted circ w that Mohan Singh had any g held that the conduct of Jasjit uencing Mohan Singh in the part of the sale money, and conv urable to himself, strengthened th

was held inapplicable, since Moh expressed his intention through ovable estate to the defenda aintiff had no enforceable claim aration or injunction was made o heir own costs. r re-appraising the entire eviden s the proof of the Will (Ex.D-1) w nces surrounding its execution h urt found multiple factors cast ncluding the active participation prepared and registered, the use ing witnesses, the omission of Kuldip Singh from the substan eeble mental and physical condit g revocation of an earlier Will da ngh, the witness who had identif s also noted that the recitals in cumstances and that there was grievance against the plaintiff. T t Singh in manipulating the s sale of the Chandigarh hou verting bank accounts and FDR he inference of undue influence

- han ant. m to out, nce, was had ting n of e of any ntial tion ated fied sale use, s in . In

view of these c the Will did not defendant had f Consequently, th and the suit of amount of the Account No.78 Singh's death.

9.

Ag the Lower Appe way of filing of

10.

De and were accord Submissions of

11.

In that the judgme suit filed by the to the amounts thereof, and no According to the simple one, nam account holder the account on t on the basis of the account was cumulative suspicious circumsta t represent the true and free inte failed to remove the legitimate he findings of the trial Court on f the plaintiff was decreed, dec FDR of ₹5,40,000/- and half o 55 in Punjab & Sind Bank, M grieved by the judgment and d ellate Court, defendant Jasjeet S f the present regular second appea spite service, the respondents h dingly proceeded against ex parte f learned counsel for the appell the present Regular Second Ap ent of the Lower Appellate Cou plaintiff was essentially one for lying in the joint bank accou ot a suit resting on questions e appellant, the real issue before mely whether in a joint "either o is entitled to withdraw the entir the death of the other holder, or succession and determination o s admittedly opened by Mohan S

ances, the appellate Court held t ention of Mohan Singh and that e doubts attached to its executi n issues 1, 2, 5 and 6 were revers claring him entitled to half of of the amount standing in Savi Mohali, as on the date of Moh decree dated 25.04.1997 passed Singh has approached this Court al. ave not appeared before this Co e. lant ppeal, the appellant has conten urt is legally erroneous because r a declaration regarding entitlem unt and for recovery of half sh s of title to immovable prope e the courts below was a narrow or survivor" account, the surviv re amount standing to the credit whether the matter is to be deci f legal heirs. It is argued that o ingh and the appellant jointly in

- that ion. sed, ngs han d by t by ourt ded ment hare erty. and ving t of ded

"either or survi honour the with Lower Appellat scrutiny of the W the Lower App suspicious circu the contents we correct before s was entitled to t of the amount t material aspect. two years prior disposing mind, when the respo surrounding circ faith in the ap Appellate Court failed to conside Registrar, who c submits that th practice whereb registration, and is lastly argued Will as the cent ivor" mode, the bank was boun drawal of the appellant and treat te Court erred in converting th Will executed by Mohan Singh. pellate Court has erred in holdi umstances, whereas according to ere read over to the testator, an signing. It is argued that the Wi the amount and that Mohan Sing o the respondent, and that the L The appellant stresses that the r to the death of Mohan Singh , that the appellant was the one w ondent declined to take him cumstances naturally explain wh ppellant. According to the app t that the Will was manipulated er that the Will was executed an certified the due identification o he Lower Appellate Court faile by dates or witness names ar d such procedural aspects cannot that the Lower Appellate Court tral issue when in fact the dispu

nd in law and banking practice t it as a valid discharge, and that his simple enquiry into a detai The appellant further contends t ing that the Will was shrouded o him the Will was duly register nd the testator admitted them to ill itself confirms that the appell gh had no intention to give any p Lower Appellate Court ignored t e execution of the Will was alm , that Mohan Singh was of sou who looked after him in his old to his residence, and that th hy the testator would repose grea pellant, the finding of the Low is wholly unfounded, and the co nd signed in the presence of the S of the testator. The appellant furt ed to appreciate common bank re often filled in at the time t by themselves create suspicion wrongly treated the question of ute could be resolved solely on

- e to iled that d in red, o be lant part this most und age hese ater wer ourt Sub ther king of n. It

basis of the natu account holders Findings of this

12.

Hav the account in q evident that suc surviving accou that mandate bi determine the b The right to ope the deposit are d

13.

Hav governs only the determine benef that arises is wh relied upon by h in the appellan examination of t the appellant c testator's last w infirmities whic the same, this prepared at the i him, and the a drafting, in arra ure of the bank account and the . s Court ving examined the record and t question was indeed opened in t ch mandate authorises the bank unt holder without insisting upon inds the bank in making a vali beneficial ownership of the mon erate the account and the right to distinct matters. ving held that the mandate of e bank's obligation to make a va ficial ownership as between the hether the appellant has succeed him, the deceased Mohan Singh nt, so as to exclude the natu the evidence on record, it becom cannot be accepted as a free wishes. The Lower Appellate Co ch strike at the root of the Will's Court finds no ground to take instance of the appellant, typed i appellant admittedly played an anging the witnesses, and in taki

e mandate given to the bank by the concurrent factual position t the "either or survivor" mode, i to release the entire amount to n succession certification. Howev d discharge. It does not, by its ney as between the parties inter succeed to the beneficial interes f an "either or survivor" acco alid discharge, and does not by it e parties inter se, the next quest ded in proving that under the W h intended to vest the entire amo ural course of succession. On mes apparent that the Will set up and voluntary declaration of ourt has catalogued several seri genuineness, and on reappraisa e a different view. The Will w in a form and manner convenien active role at every stage in ing the testator for registration. T

- that it is ver, self, se. st in ount self tion Will ount an p by ous al of was nt to

attesting witness house as the app testimony conta absence of the a undue influence plaintiff because the evidence w Chandigarh unti appellant. Furth the sale of the entirety of that other. The recita an anomaly be uncertainty abou mentioned its e serious shadow signing. The su about 85 years hearing had de memory had b finances shortly and had handle converting FDR accounting for legitimate and s ses are not independent, one is a pellant and the other is the appel ains contradictions on material appellant at the time of executio e. The recital in the Will that e the appellant had been helping which shows that Mohan Sing il 1988 and had not been receivi er, the Will is completely silent house, even though the effect amount to one son without a al purporting to revoke an earlie cause during cross-examination ut the existence of such a Will a execution to him. This unexpl on whether Mohan Singh under urrounding circumstances also c of age at the time of executio eclined, and witnesses who we ecome short. The appellant ha y before the Will, had persuaded d the sale proceeds in a manne Rs, withdrawing large amount the funds. All these circumstan substantial doubt as to whether

a close relative residing in the sa llant's income-tax lawyer, and th l aspects such as the presence on, thus reinforcing the suspicion the testator wished to exclude g him financially is contradicted gh had been living separately ing special care or support from on the heavy deposits flowing fr of the dispositions is to divert plausible reason for excluding er Will dated 21.12.1983 introdu n the appellant himself expres and stated that his father had ne lained inconsistency itself cast rstood the contents of what he w cannot be ignored, the testator w on, his eyesight had weakened, ere close relatives stated that ad taken control of the testato d him to sell the Chandigarh hou er favourable to himself, includ ts, and purchasing a car with nces, taken cumulatively, creat r the testator was acting out of

- ame heir e or n of d by y in rom uces ssed ever ts a was was his his or's use, ding hout te a

own free will o than the testator circumstances o document was p understood. The which surround Will cannot be succession.

14.

Con disposition in fa follow the ordin share in the amo Mohan Singh's Conclusion

15.

the Will and th based on prope appellant has fa appeal is accord

16.

Pen

December 01, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh or whether the dispositions refle r's true mind. The fact that the of this case, remove the suspicion presented and signed, not that th e appellant has thus failed to d d the Will, and I concur with th e treated as duly proved so a nsequently, in the absence of avour of the appellant, the bene nary course of inheritance, and th ounts standing in the joint accou death stands affirmed. e findings of the Lower Appella he consequent succession to the er appreciation of evidence a iled to establish any legal infirm dingly dismissed. nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

ect the appellant's influence rat Will is registered does not, in n. Registration only proves that he dispositions were voluntary dispel the suspicious circumstan he Lower Appellate Court that as to displace the normal rule a valid and proved testament eficial interest in the deposits m he entitlement of the plaintiff to h unt and in the FDRs on the date te Court regarding the non-proo joint deposits are findings of f and call for no interference. T mity in the impugned judgment. T stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- ther and nces e of tary must half e of f of