Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Latest Jugment 2013

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others
In the court of Rajnish K. Sharma,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division),
Chandigarh
Civil Suit-I
Computer Id No. 040101014802005
Civil Suit No. 473/23-7-2010
Date of Institution : 15-10-1992
Date of decision : 25-7-2013
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur daughter of Raja Harinder Singh Brar
Bans Bahadur, wife of Sh. Harpal Singh, R/o 258, Sector 11,
Chandigarh.
---------- Plaintiff
Versus
1.
Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey Chand

Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur, Kolkatta.
2.
Rajkumar Jai Chand Mehtab son of Maharaja Sadey

Chand Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur, Kolkatta.
3.
Maharawal Khewaji Trust through its Board of Trustees:

(1)
Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey

Chand Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur,
Kolkatta.
(2)
Raj Kumar Jai Chand Mehtab son of Maharaja

Sadey Chand Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur,
Kolkatta.
(3)
Lalit Mohan Gupta son of Sh. Bimal Kumar Gupta,

r/o Adarsh Nagar, Faridkot.
(4)
Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh, Chief Legal

Advisor, Clock Tower Street, Faridkot.
(5)
S.K. Kataria son of Sh. Harbans Lal, Street no.5,

Balbir Basti, Faridkot.
(6)
Maj. Gurdeep Inder Singh son of Sardar Bahadur

Kartar Singh, Mehmuiana, House No.1, Clock
Tower Street, Faridkot.

2
(7)
Gurdev Singh, Fort Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh.
(8)
Dr. P.S.Sandhu son of S.Shamsher Singh Sandhu,

r/o Medical Campus, Faridkot.
4.
M/S ANZ Grindley Bank, Bombay through its manager.
5.
Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh (now deceased) son of

Maharaja Brijinder Singh through LRs
(i)
Bharat Inder Singh son of late Kanwar Manjit Inder

Singh, R/o Council House, Faridkot.
(ii)
Raj Kumari Dev Inder Kaur daughter of late

Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh through LR Raj Kumari
Heminder Kaur daughter of Raj Kumari Dev Inder
Kaur , r/o 758, Sector 8, Chandigarh.
------------ Defendants
Suit for Declaration

and Injunction.
Present: Sh. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gurveen H.
Singh counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Ranjit Singh Wahniwal, Sh. R.K. Mittal and Sh.
P.S.Sandhu, Sh. Vinod K. Katari and Sh. Mukesh Mittal,
counsel for defendants respectively.
Defendant no.4 already exparte.
Sh. GK Verma counsel for defendant no.5(i) .
Civil Suit -II
Computer Id No. 040101000151992
Civil Suit No. 4193/21-8-2010
Date of Institution : 4-4-1992
Date of decision : 25-7-2013
Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh son of Maharaja Major Brij Inder
Singh, R/O Faridkot (deceased) through its following legal
heirs and representatives:1.
Bharat Inder Singh son of late Kanwar Manjit Inder

Singh r/o Council House, Faridkot, Punjab.

3
2.
Raj Kumari Dev Inder Kaur d/o late Kanwar Manjit Inder
Singh, r/o House No.309, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
---------- Plaintiffs
Versus
1.
Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey Chand

Mehtab, 14/3, Burdwan Road, Alipur, Kolkatta,
proclaiming herself to be the Chairman of the Trust.
2.
Rajkumari Mahdeep Inder Kaur d/o late Raja Harinder

Singh, 13, Nandan Apartments, Fateh Sultan Lane,
Nampally, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, proclaiming
himself to be the Vice-Chairman of the Trust.
3.
Shri Umrao Singh son of Sh. Bishan Singh, near the Fort
(Mahikhana) Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be the
Chief Executive Officer of the Trust.
4.
Sh. Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh, Chief Legal

Adviser, Clock Tower, Street, Faridkot, proclaiming
himself to be the Chief Legal Adviser of the Trust.
5.
Sh. Lal Singh son of Sh. Bhole Singh, Street no.5, Balbir
Basti, Faridkot proclaiming himself to be the Head
Agriculture Officer of the Trust.
6.
Sh. S.K. Kataria son of Sh. Harbans Lal,Street No.5,

Balbir Basti, Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be Legal
Adviser of the Trust.
7.
Maj. Gurdeep Inder Singh son of S.Bahadur Kartar Singh,

Mehmuiana House No.1, Clock Tower Street, Faridkot
proclaiming himself to be the Member of the Trust.
8.
Sh. Harbans Singh s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh, Gali No.6,

Doggar Basti, Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be
member of the Trust.
9.
Sh. Gurdev Singh, Fort Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh,

proclaiming himself to be the Member of the Trust.
10.
Sh. Jagir Singh son of Sh. Bhag Singh, Bir Bholuwara

Tehsil, Faridkot, proclaiming himself to be the Member of

4
the Trust.
11.
M/S ANZ Grindley Bank, Head Office, Bombay.
12.
Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu, Faridkot.
13.
Meharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot.
14.
Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (added as defendant vide order

dated 26-7-1994).
------------ Defendants
Suit
for
Declaration,
Permanent Injunction and
Mandatory injunction.
Present: Sh. G.K.Verma, counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gurveen H.
Singh counsel for defendant no.14.
Sh.R.K. Mittal counsel for remaining defendants.
JUDGEMENT
1. This judgment disposes of (1) Civil Suit No.473/23-72010/15-10-1992, titled as Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs
Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others and (2) Civil Suit
no.4193/21-8-2010/4-4-1992, titled as Kanwar Manjit
Inder Singh Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others.
2. Facts of the civil suit titled as 'Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs
Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others' as unfolded in
pleadings are as under:3. The plaintiff has pleaded that Raja Harinder Singh Brar
Bans Bahadur son of Maharaja Brij Inder Singh was the
father of the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2. He was
the erstwhile ruler of Faridkot State. The plaintiff and

5
defendants no.1 and 2 are the daughters of late Raja

Harinder Singh who died on 16-10-1989 leaving behind
the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 as his only legal
heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. Raja Harinder
Singh had only one son namely Tikka Harmohinder
Singh who died on 13-10-1981 and thus he predeceased
his father Raja Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur.
Mother of plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 i.e. the wife
of Raja Harinder Singh died during the life time of Raja
Harinder Singh. She was, however, alive on 1-6-1982 on
which date Raja Harinder Singh is purported to have
executed the alleged Will.
After independence of the
country, various princely State were merged into the

Indian Union. Like others, Raja Harinder Singh, ruler of
erstwhile Faridkot State entered into a covenant with the
rulers of erstwhile State of East Punjab with the
concurrence of the Government of India. As a result of
the covenant, Patiala and East Punjab States Union came
into existence which was popularly known as PEPSU.
Rulers of the covenanting States were declared to be
entitled to enjoy the title, ownership rights, use and
enjoyment of all the properties declared by him, kept as
distinct properties from the State properties inherited by
him from his ancestors. The properties belonging to his
ancestors claimed by him as belonging to him on the date

6
of his making over the administration of the State to the

Raj Pramukh, he was the holder of title of ownership, use
and enjoyment of the property as a member of joint
Hindu Family property as well as co-parcener property.
According to the covenant, every ruler was required to
furnish list of Hindu Undivided Family, Joint Hindu
Family and the private properties of his family in his own
name. Raja Harinder Singh accordingly submitted a list
of his properties which was accepted by the Union
Government. It may be mentioned here that the above
referred properties were treated to be the ancestral as
well as private individual properties subject to the law of
inheritance under the law of the land i.e. Hindu
Succession Act. Inheritance of such properties can not
govern by the Rule of Primogeniture. At the most such
rule could apply to the Gaddi and State properties and
not to the properties of Raja as detailed in the suit.
Moreover, rule of the primogeniture is a feudal law and it
is violative not only of the Constitution of India but also
of the Hindu Succession Act. It violates Articles 14, 16
and 19 of the Constitution of India and it is
discriminatory because it excludes females in the matter
of inheritance. Since the properties in dispute are Joint
Hindu and the ancestral properties, therefore, the
plaintiff is entitled to succeed to those properties

7
alongwith defendants no.1 and 2 after the death of Raja

Harinder Singh Brar. He had no right to alienate such
ancestral / joint Hindu property by way of alleged Will or
otherwise. In alternative and without prejudice to the
foregoing
and
assuming
without
admitting
that
primogeniture is applicable, the plaintiff is entitled to

succeed to the entire estate of her father Raja Harinder
Singh even assuming without admitting that it is
impartible, since she is the eldest surviving child and
there are no males who take priority to her under the
rules of lineal primogeniture.
In the alternative and
without prejudice to the foregoing and assuming without

admitting that the Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act, 1948
(Act V of 1948 which received His Highness the Raja's
assent on 18th August 1948) is applicable, the plaintiff is
entitled to the entire estate of the Raja under section 4,
sub section 3 of the said enactment whereby the plaintiff
is the Raja's legitimate descendant. In any event and
without prejudice to the foregoing, the plaintiff is entitled
to 1/3rd share in the Estate of her father as prayed, as the
plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are the nearest
agnates contemplated by the said Act. List and details of
the properties which are joint Hindu family, ancestral/
co-parcener and private properties of late Raja Harinder
Singh with respect to which he had no right to alienate in

8
any manner except for the maintenance of the corpus of

the Joint Hindu Family, was given.
4. It has been averred that Raja Harinder Singh was a
Hindu Brar Jat and was governed by the Hindu
Succession Act which had abrogated the custom after the
said Act came into force. Raja Harinder Singh died on 1610-1989. The plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2
inherited the property in dispute in equal shares
according to the Hindu Succession Act and as such the
plaintiff became the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in
these properties. The defendants no.1 to 3 had no right,
title or interest in the said properties, but they have set
up the alleged Will which they are alleging to have been
executed by late Raja Harinder Singh on 1-6-1982. Said
alleged Will is factitious and is a forged and fabricated
document. It does not vest any right, title or interest in
any body nor can it divest the plaintiff and defendants
no.1 and 2 of the properties.
The alleged Will is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances, therefore,

inheritance to the properties left by Raja Harinder Singh
would be governed under section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act under which the plaintiff and defendants
no.1 and 2 are the only legal heirs of late Raja Harinder
Singh to succeed the properties left by him. If it is taken
that Raja Harinder Singh was governed by the Customary

9
Law (though not admitted) even under the custom

prevalent among the agriculturists of Punjab, the
ancestral property could not be alienated by way of
alleged Will or otherwise. The property in dispute had all
alongwith been treated as Joint Hindu Family in the
hands of Raja Harinder Singh and which had been
inherited from his ancestors. No part of this property was
self acquired property of Raja Harinder Singh. He
inherited the property when he accepted the accession to
the country. In the alternative the deceased was a Hindu
and the properties were Joint Hindu Family, co-parcener
properties and were incapable of alienation by the Karta
by way of alleged Will or otherwise. The alleged Will
dated 1-6-1982 set up by the defendants, is forged,
fictitious and fabricated and does not inspire confidence
and its execution is full of suspicious circumstances. It is
most unnatural that the plaintiff is the eldest daughter of
Raja Harinder Singh and her mother the Rani, who was
alive at the time of the execution of the alleged Will, were
almost left out of the bequest or were most meagerly
provided for as compared to the wealth and quantum of
properties mentioned in the alleged Will and Maharani
Maninder Kaur, mother of Raja Harinder Singh who was
alive at the time of execution of the alleged Will was
completely ignored and denied any share or position in

10
the Trust just life the wife and eldest daughter.
No
provision has been made in the alleged Will for the

dependents of the deceased suitable to their status and
the life which they have led and supported him
throughout his life.
The alleged Will is result of
misrepresentation, undue influence played on Raja

Harinder Singh and was not voluntarily made by late
Raja Harinder Singh.
5. It has been averred that Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh Brar,
Advocate is one of the attesting witnesses. He particularly
exercised undue influence upon the Raja and this is clear
from the fact that Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh himself is the
beneficiary under the alleged Will. After death of his only
son Tikka Harmohinder Singh on 13-10-1981, Raja
Harinder Singh used to remain depressed all the time. He
was mentally upset on account of death of his only son
which took place about 8 months before the execution of
alleged Will. Because of death of his son, Raja Harinder
Singh was continuously living in the state of depression,
was imbalanced and became dependent only on coterie
around him which capitalized on vulnerability of the Raja
and exercised undue influence upon him by making
misrepresentations and fraud was played by the said
coteries on late Raja Harinder Singh. The alleged Will is
therefore null and void. It is clear that space for date in

11
the alleged Will was kept blank and was subsequently

filled in with pen whereas whole of the remaining alleged
Will is duly typed. No reasons were given in the alleged
Will by the testator for excluding the plaintiff, her mother
and her grand mother.
By way of alleged Will Raja
Harinder Singh Brar is purported to have been created a

Trust known as Maharwal Khewaji Trust to be managed
by the trustees as indicated above and mentioned in the
alleged Will.
Creation of such Trust is illegal under
sections 4,5 and 6 of the Indian Trust Act. As per the

alleged Will, a Trust in perpetuity has been created which
is void, ab-initio and it is not permissible in law. The
dominant purpose of the alleged Trust is to look after the
old and decadent building and other movable properties
of deceased Raja Harinder Singh. There is no provision as
to how the surplus income is to be utilized. The trust
created is vague and indefinite and carries inherent
defects and cumbersome procedures for its execution. It
is thus void. Raja Harinder Singh could not create any
Trust in respect to the Joint Hindu Family/ ancestral
property inherited by him from his ancestors and on that
account also the creation of the Trust is illegal.
The
plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are the only legal

heirs of the deceased Raja Harinder Singh and are
entitled to inherit the movable and immovable properties

12
left by him to the extent of 1/3rd share of the properties.

The plaintiff requested the defendants several times to
admit her rights in the property in dispute but the
defendants have refused to accede her request on the
basis of forged and fabricated Will. Hence, the present
suit has been filed.
6. In pursuance of notice issued by the Court, the
defendants no.1,2,3 (1,2,3,5,7) and 5 filed their joint
written statement wherein they took legal objections
interalia, to the effect that Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh,
younger brother of late Colonel Sir Harinder Singh Brar
Bans Bahadur KCSI of Faridkot has also staked claim to
the succession to the estate of the deceased and has filed
civil suit no.75 of 1-4-1992 titled as Kanwar Manjit Inder
Singh Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur Sahiba and others
in respect of suit property which is pending in the Court
and he is therefore necessary party to the present suit;
that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose
of Court fee and jurisdiction. In the plaint, the plaintiff
has clearly claimed relief of joint possession to the extent
of 1/3rd share of suit property and the plaintiff has affixed
value of suit property grossly and ridiculously at a low
value of Rs.130/- only and has affixed a paltry court fee of
Rs.19.50 paise only, whereas market value of the property
runs into billions of rupees. Market value of the following

13
properties has been estimated by the District Valuation

Officer, New Delhi and Chandigarh appointed by the
Government of India u/s 16-A of the Wealth Tax Act 1957
as under:Sr.
No.
Name of Property
Valuation date
as on 12-4-84
Valuation to be
increased by 10%
every year
1.
Faridkot House, Copernics 3,25,12,000/Marg, New Delhi
6,96,92,359/-
2.
Faridkot House 35/48, 99,93,000/Diplomatic Enclave 1-Naya

Marg, New Delhi
21,42,088/-
Okhla Industrial Plot
7,05,000/-
16,62,585/-
4.
Mashobra House
18,91,700/-
40,55,027/-
5.
Riviera Apartment,
Mall, Delhi
6.
Hotel Plot,Chandigarh
7.
Raj Mahal, Faridkot as on 31,14,374/12-4-81
88,85,672/-
8.
Qila Mubarik, Faridkot as 38,22,400/on 12-4-82
99,14,321/-
The 4,22,000/50,55,200/-
9,04,595/1,08,36,266/-
In addition, the fair market value of the following

properties on the date of suit is as under:1.
Stables, Faridkot in an area of
Rs.30,00,000/-
about 4 acres
2.
Surajgarh Fort, Mani Majra
Rs.2,00,00,000/-
(in an area of about 5 acres)

Market value of the movable properties of which
possession has been claimed in the heading of the plaint
would also run into billion of rupees. Deficiency in court
fee should be made good from the plaintiff; that the suit
is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Khasra

14
No.43/6 measuring 31K 15 M situated in the area of

village
Kaimbwala,
UT
is
in
possession
of
UT
Administration, Chandigarh which is necessary party to

the suit. Similarly, remaining land in revenue estate
Kaimbawala (except 12 K of land comprising of Rect.
No.27 Killa No.24/2/2 and Killa No.25) is also in
possession of Forest Department, UT, Chandigarh. Its
possession was taken by the said department under the
Chose Act and has been afforested as a measure of soil
conservation, therefore,
forest
department
of
UT,
Chandigarh is necessary party to the suit. Further, as

regards the land of village Mauli Jagran measuring 13K 1
M it is recorded as Shamlat Deh under Gram Panchayat
or member of village proprietary body who are necessary
parties to the suit. In Ballabgarh Revenue Estate, Khasra
No.156,157 and 158 are recorded in the revenue record in
possession of District Board/ Zila Parisad and PWD
Department of Haryana Government in whose absence
suit can not proceed. A part of Khasra No.158 measuring
1K 15M in the revenue estate of Ballabgarh stands sold.
Its vendees are in possession of the said land who are
necessary parties to the suit. Suit qua this land is not
maintainable in their absence. Khasra No.133 of revenue
Estate Ballabgarh is also in possession of Pujari of
Mandir Sh. Mool Chand and his descendants as is clear

15
from the Jamabandi entries and they are also necessary

party to the suit. In revenue estate Dhana bulk of the land
was declared surplus under Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act 1953 vide order of Special Collector dated 15-1979
and
the
Haryana
Government
has
taken
possession of these lands and ejectable tenants were

settled who are in possession of the land. Haryana State
and tenants are necessary parties to the suit; that one of
the original trustees namely S. Niranjan Singh, Treasury
and Accounts Officer, H.H. Personnel Estates has
unfortunately passed away on 15-1-1992 due to heart
failure and in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Constitution of the Trust, the Board and Trustees
have appointed Lt. Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu son of S.Tota
Singh, R/o village Qila Nau, Tehsil and District Faridkot
as Trustee in place of late S.Niranjan Singh vide
resolution no.55 dated 13-4-1992. Lt. Mukhtiar Singh
Sandhu has accepted the appointment and has taken over
as Trustee. He is necessary party to the suit. His non
joinder is fatal to the suit; that full description and
particulars as required by Order 7 Rule 3 CPC in respect
of the immovable properties which are the subject matter
of the present suit, have not been given in the plaint. No
site plan of any of the building has been filed with the
plaint. The description given is vague and incomplete;

16
that no particulars and identifiable description of

movable properties, vehicles, agriculture machinery,
jewellery and other articles has been given in the plaint;
that the property known as Fairy Cottage (Country Club)
situated in Bir Chahal, Tehsil and District Faridkot, Flat
No.32, Riviera Apartment, The Mall, Delhi
and one
another property stand vested in a declaratory Trust

known as Faridkot Ruling Family Housing Trust
created by late owner Colonel Sir Harinder Singh Brar
Bans Bahadur KCSI. Beneficiaries of this Trust are all the
three daughters of the Settler.
Said properties are in
possession of the beneficiaries. Therefore, present suit is

not maintainable qua the same. Aforesaid Trust is
necessary party. These properties ceased to be the
ownership of the testator; that a part of screw factory
area is in possession of Faridkot District Red Cross
Society who has built over there Amar Ashram. District
Red Cross Society, Faridkot is, therefore, necessary party;
that in revenue estate of Mashobra, 87 Bighas 8 Biswas of
land comprising of Khasra No.37/1/50,52,60/2, 65/1 77
has been declared surplus by the Collector, Agrarian
Himachal Pradesh vide his order dated 28-4-1985 and
appeal against the said order was dismissed by
Commissioner Shimla Division vide order dated 5-11-90.
Revision Petition has also been dismissed by Financial

17
Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. Possession has been

taken over as per Rapt. Roznamcha No.439 dated 24-71991. Himachal Pradesh State is therefore, necessary
party to the suit; that members of the Board of trustees of
Maharawal Khewaji Trust should have been impleaded
personally; that civil court at Chandigarh has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the
plaintiffs claim primarily is founded upon suit property
being ancestral coparcenary and joint Hindu Family
property of which testator is alleged to be not capable of
making the Will. The property within UT Chandigarh
referred to in the plaint do not fall within the scope of
present suit. Following properties within the UT
Chandigarh are included in the suit: (i)
Agriculture land at village Kaimbwala.
(ii)
Agriculture land at village Mauli Jagran.
(iii) Agriculture land at village Mani Majra.

(iv)
Constructed Fort known as Surajgarh Fort, Mani

Majra.
(v)
Hotel Site No.12, sector 17, Chandigarh.
7. As regards properties no.(i) to (iv), these were gifted to

Raja Harinder Singh by his grand mother Rani Suraj
Kaur vide registration Gift Deed dated 18-2-1937
alongwith
other
landed
and
immovable
property
mentioned in the Gift Deed. Rani Suraj Kaur inherited

18
the same from her mother Shabdit Kaur which the later
inherited from her husband Raja Bhagwan Singh about
which mutation no.207 dated 30-5-1937 was sanctioned
relating to the estate of village Kaimbwala and mutation
no.768 dated 31-5-1937 relating to revenue estate of
village Mani Majra. This inheritance was duly recorded
and sanctioned vide mutation no.207 dated 30-5-1937.
As regards, hotel site, sector 17D, Chandigarh having an
area of 13198.77 Sq. Yds. it was purchased by the Testator
Late Colonel Harinder Singh Brar in an open auction held
on 27-9-1970 as commercial site for Rs.13,40,000/- as is
clear from sale letter dated 5-11-1970 issued by the Estate
Officer, Chandigarh Administration, UT, Chandigarh. All
the installments were paid by the testator in his own life
time. Thus, it was undisputedly his self acquired
property. None of the above properties could form the
subject matter of this suit. None of them can even
remotely be claimed by the plaintiff to be ancestral
properties qua him what to talk their successor being
governed
by
Hindu
Law.
Since
in
the
above
circumstances, none of the properties mentioned in the

suit to which even a claim could be staked by the plaintiff
as ancestral properties of Raja Harinder Singh is located
within jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this court has
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Board of trustees of

19
Maharwal Khewaji Trust created by the impugned Will

comprising of defendant no.3 (1,2,3,5,7) and late S.
Niranjan Singh after demise of late Colonel Harinder
Singh, had taken over possession, control, management
of the estate of the deceased with the assent of the
Executors appointed under the said Will, therefore,
defendants no.3 (4,6 and 9) are not necessary parties.
Similarly, defendants no.3(8 and 10) are not necessary
parties; that claim for additional declaration and reliefs
as sought in the amended plaint purporting to be dated
18-11-1993 are not within time. Col. Sir Harinder Singh,
ruler of former Faridkot State had passed away on 16-101989. Maharwali Khewaji Trust comprising of defendant
no.3 (1,2,3,5,7) and late S. Niranjan Singh as members of
the Board of Trustees of Maharwal Khewaji Trust,
Faridkot constituted by registered Will dated 1-6-1982
had taken over possession, management and control of
the entire estate of the deceased on demise of the testator
and since then they are in its actual and physical
possession and are administering the Trust according to
the directions in the Will as is clear from Resolution No.1
dated 20-10-1989 and other resolutions.
Claim for
additional declaration and reliefs as made in the

amended plaint, therefore, are not within time and are
liable to be dismissed; that the plaintiff is not entitled to

20
sue the trustees of Maharawal Khewaji Trust personally

for accounts. The plaintiff has no right to claim accounts
from them. Trustees are bound to execute the Trust in
accordance with directions given in the Will. The plaintiff
is not entitled to claim any accounts from the answering
defendants; that the defendants no.3 (4,6,9) as per terms
and conditions of the Will dated 1-6-1982 are only
executors and not trustees; that suit has not been
properly valued for the purpose of court fee and
jurisdiction for the relief of rendition of accounts. In the
amended plaint, alternative relief of plaintiff being
exclusive owner of the suit property is made and
consequential relief as may be necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case and ends of justice has been
made. The plaintiff admittedly is not in possession of the
suit property. In the amended plaint, she seeks
declaration
to
be
deemed
possession
alongwith
defendants no.1 and 2. However, for seeking alternative

relief of exclusive ownership on the basis of alleged rule
of primogeniture as under the alleged Raja Faridkot State
Act 1948, the plaintiff is to value her suit for the purpose
of court fee and jurisdiction for consequential relief
flowing from the above declaration. If the plaintiff claims
to be an exclusive owner and admittedly she is not in
possession, then she is required to pay advalorem court

21
fee on the market value of the suit properties for claiming

consequential relief; that in the original plaint, the
plaintiff had sought the declaration that she is owner of
1/3rd share of the suit properties and she claimed the
relief of possession, for which also the suit is not properly
valued. The defendants no.1 and 2 admittedly and jointly,
after demise of the testator, have not entered into
possession of any part of the estate of the deceased in
their capacity as natural heirs and the defendants no.1
and 2 have never staked any claim to the succession of
the estate of the deceased as natural heirs after demise of
the testator and on the contrary, they accepted the Will
and also accepted the offices with which they were
invested by the Will as is clear from Resolution no.1 dated
20-10-1989 and other resolutions of the Board of the
Trustees of Maharwal Khewaji Trust. The answering
defendants as Trustees of Maharwal Khewaji Trust have
taken over possession, control and management of entire
estate of the deceased and are in actual physical
possession of the property in dispute in their capacity as
Trustees. Agriculture lands situated in different revenue
estates have already been mutated in the name of Board
of Trustees. In the revenue record of all the revenue
estates,
Maharwal
Khewaji
Trust
is
recorded
in
possession of the said properties possession of which has

22
been sought in the present suit. All urban immovable

properties situated at Faridkot, Mashobra etc. have also
been mutated in the name of Trust and Trust is recorded
in its possession through its Trustees. The plaintiff being
admittedly out of possession and defendants no.1 and 2
being not in actual possession of any part of the suit
property, the plaintiff therefore, is not entitled to be
declared to be in deemed possession. The plaintiff being
admittedly out of possession, therefore, suit for bare
declaration is not maintainable without seeking relief of
possession. The suit, therefore, is liable to be dismissed
as a person can not seek declaration simplester as per the
provisions of section 34 of Specific Relief Act without
claiming further relief to which he is entitled.
8. On merits, the defendants broadly denied all the
averments of the plaint and they pleaded that Will in
question is valid and legal document in the eyes of law.
They admitted that wife of Colonel Harinder Singh Brar,
Rani Narinder Kaur Sahiba passed away on 19-4-1986,
though she was alive on 1-6-1982 yet she was living
separately and getting fixed monthly sum as maintenance
from her husband much prior to 1-6-1982 and
subsequent thereto till her life. Sir Harinder Singh Brar
was the erstwhile Maharaja of Faridkot State and he was
its sovereign ruler. Faridkot ceased to be a sovereign

23
princely State and Col. Harinder Singh ceased to be its

sovereign ruler in 1949 when the State of Faridkot
alongwith seven other princely states namely Patiala,
Kapurthala, Nabha, Malerkotla, Jind Nalagarh and Kalsia
were integrated to form the Patiala and East Punjab
States Union commonly known as PEPSU which on
coming into force of the Constitution on January 26th
1950 became a part of Union of India. Later, on reorganization of the States by the States Reorganization
Act 1956, the entity of PEPSU also ceased as its territories
were merged in the Punjab. It is, however, worth noting
that although Faridkot was a sovereign State when the
British occupied the Punjab, the State came under the
paramountcy
of
the
British
Crown
which
was
acknowledged as the Suzerain Power. However, on India

attaining independence by the Act of British Parliament
namely the Indian Independence Act, 1947 the suzerainty
of the British Crown over Faridkot State as in the case of
other princely States, lapsed by virtue of S.7 of the said
Act and Faridkot became a complete sovereign state once
again.
9. The defendants further averred that the Rule of
Primogeniture was never applied to Faridkot State. In
fact, no female especially married one could succeed
under the alleged Rule of Primogeniture. After marriage a

24
Hindu female becomes member of her husband's family

and ceases to be member of her paternal family. Estate
left by deceased was not impartible as mentioned. Sir
Harinder Singh Brar was its absolute owner. It was his
personal property and provisions of Hindu Succession
Act governed the succession to the estate. The plaintiff is
not competent or eligible to succeed under the alleged
Rule of Primogeniture or to the alleged impartible estate.
After enactment of Hindu Succession Act, provisions of
Hindu Succession Act govern succession. All other Acts
and Rules of succession stand repealed. In fact, the
plaintiff is not legal heir to the estate of the deceased.
Moreover, the deceased had, by registered Will dated 1-61982, bequeathed his entire estate including the suit
property in favour of defendant no.3 (1,2,3,5,7) and late
Sh. Niranjan Singh. Alleged Raja of Faridkot Estate Act
1948 (Act No.5 of 1948) was never enacted during the
existence of Faridkot State. Defendants were never
treated as agnate of the last owner, but were only
cognates. Testator was having every right to alienate the
suit property through Will. The properties were his
personal and self acquired properties. The Will is not
surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. There is no
question of inheritance of any movable or immovable
properties as the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 are

25
not legal heirs of the deceased Testator. The Will was

proclaimed and read out from the ramparts of historic
Qila Mubarik, Faridkot on the Bhog ceremony of the last
rites of the testator in the presence of plaintiff and her
husband. She was given photo copy of the Will duly
attested by the Chief Executive S. Umrao Singh Dhaliwal
and on demand of the plaintiff after conclusion of Bhog
ceremony plaintiff never raised a little finger against the
Will, rather acquiesced and assented to the taking over of
the estate of the Testator by the Trust. In fact, she had
accepted the Will and did not stake any claim to the
succession to the estate of the deceased. In the Will there
is specific mention with regard to the maintenance and
other provisions for the family members of the Testator.
Testator also created a Trust in England vide settlement
deed dated 1-4-1955 making Grindlay Bank Limited,
London as sole Trustee with the object that his daughters
would not lay claim to his remaining estate. This is clear
manifestation of the intention of the Testator. Income
from the Trust was in full and final satisfaction of the
claims of the daughters to his estate.
The bank was
directed to disburse income of the above investment half

yearly of first portion to his three daughters and of the
second portion to his son Tikka Harmohinder Singh.
Bank was also authorized to sell or convert the above

26
investments and invest into money in any manner to

maximize the income to the beneficiaries.
After the
demise of Tikka Harmohinder Singh, the only of the

Testator, income of the second portion of the said Trust
also destined to go to the three daughters. Income from
the above investments throughout has been paid
regularly by the said bank according to their respective
shares.
Permanent regular income from the Trust is
quite handsome amount for meeting the expenses of the

daughters of the Testator according to their status.
Provisions made in the above Settlement Deed dated 1-41955 can not be said meager or paltry according to the
facts and circumstances of the case.
10.It has been further averred that the plaintiff was not at all
dependent upon the Testator at the time of execution of
the Will or at the time of his demise. She got herself
married in the year 1952. Her husband has been a high
ranking police officer in the State of Haryana. He had
also stint in B.S.F. and he retired as D.I.G. Haryana.
During
his long
service
in
police hierarchy,
he
commanded great influence. The plaintiff has built a very

palatial house at Chandigarh. Plaintiff's family also own
considerable landed property in different villages. Her
children are highly educated. Her son is a high ranking
official in a bank in U.K. and is drawing handsome salary.

27
One of her daughter is Commissioner, Income Tax. Her

second daughter is practicing Advocate in Punjab and
Haryana High Court. Plaintiff's family is rolling in wealth.
All the children of the plaintiff are married in well off
families. There was no question of making any provision
for the well settled daughter in an affluent family. Rest of
the paras of the plaint were denied in toto. At last, a
prayer was made that suit may be dismissed with costs.
11. The defendants no.3 (4,6 and 9) also filed their separate
written statement and they took similar stand as that of
the defendants whose written statement has been
discussed above. They also stated that Will in question is
valid and legal document in the eyes of the law and is not
surrounded with mystery.
12.Defendant Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh (plaintiff of
connected case) also filed his separate written statement
wherein he took legal objections to the effect that the
plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit
because late Raja Harinder Singh was Ex-Ruler of
Faridkot Estate and ancestors of late Raja Harinder Singh
and the answering defendants were Jat Sikh Brars and in
the matter of inheritance or succession the family of late
Raja Harinder Singh and the answering defendant is
governed by the Rule of Primogeniture. In the absence of
a male living child, according to the custom, the brothers

28
succeeds to the estate and thus after the death of late Raja
Harinder Singh, the answering defendant has inherited
all the movable and immovable property left by late Raja
Harinder Singh. The answering defendant was the only
brother and therefore, inherited all the property in
question left by late Raja Harinder Singh. The plaintiff in
the suit Smt. Amrit Kaur is daughter of late Raja
Harinder
Singh
and
according
to
the
rule
of
Primogeniture, females do not inherit the property and

therefore, no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff
to file the suit.
13.On merits, the defendant took stand that late Raja
Harinder Singh was father of plaintiff Smt. Amrit Kaur
and
Maharani
Deepinder
Kaur
and
Raj
Kumari
Mahipinder Kaur. Raja Harinder Singh had one son who

died during the life time of Raja Harinder Singh. Thus,
the
answering
defendant
by
virtue
of
rule
of
Primogeniture and custom has inherited the property in

question. The plaintiff Smt. Amrit Kaur and her sisters
defendants no.1 and 2 have no legal right to inherit the
property in question left by late Raja Harinder Singh.
According to custom, applicable in the family of
answering defendant and late Raja Harinder Singh only
male living child could succeed to the property and the
answering defendant being the only male member,

29
succeeds to the estate of late Raja Harinder Singh. It is

denied that at the time of merger of the Faridkot state in
the year 1948 late Raja Harinder Singh was holder of title
of ownership, use and enjoyment of the property as a
member of Joint Hindu Family property and co-parcener
property. It is also denied that Government of India
declared the succession of the properties subject to
inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
The
answering defendant being the brother and there being

no other male member living in the family, the answering
defendant succeeded to all the immovable and movable
properties left by late Raja Harinder Singh on his death.
14.The defendant further averred that the Will under
question is fictitious and is forged and fabricated
document. Creation of alleged Trust by the alleged Will is
wholly null and void. Raja Harinder Singh had no right or
authority to create the alleged Trust by alleged Will. The
alleged Trust created by the alleged Will in perpetuity is
void, abinitio and is not permissible under the law.
Similarly, the dominant purpose of the alleged Trust is to
look after the old buildings and other movable properties
of the deceased Raja Harinder Singh. There is no
provision as to how the surplus income is to be utilized.
Accumulation of income of the Trust in perpetuity as
allegedly provided in the Will, is not permissible under

30
the law. Similarly, the alleged Trust created in the Will is

vague and indefinite and it carries inherent defects and
cumbersome procedure has been laid down for carrying
out the purpose of the Trust which is not possible to
implement and the alleged Trust under the Will is
therefore, void being in-executable. Rest of the paras of
the plaint were denied in toto. At last a prayer was made
for dismissal of present suit.
15. Replications were filed to the written statements in which
all the averments of the plaint were reiterated and that of
the written statements were denied.
16.In Civil Suit No. 4193/21-8-2010/4-4-1992, titled
Kanwar
Manjit
Inder
Singh
Vs
Maharani
Deepinder Kaur and others, it has been averred by

the plaintiff of that suit Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh
(deceased through his legal heirs) that Raja Harinder
Singh was his brother. Said Raja Harinder Singh was the
erstwhile Ruler of Faridkot State (Phulkian State). The
pedigree table of late Raja Harinder Singh and the
plaintiff was also mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint.
Raja Harinder Singh, since deceased, had only one son
namely Tikka Harmohinder Singh who died on 13-101981. Late Raja Harinder Singh had no other son at the
time of his death and had only daughters namely Raj
Kumari Amrit Kaur, Raj Kumari Deepinder Kaur and Raj

31
Kumari Maheepinder Kaur and her widow Her Highness

Narinder Kaur died during the life time of Raja Harinder
Singh. Late Raja Harinder Singh and plaintiff are Jat
Sikh Brars and in the matter of inheritance and
succession, they are governed by the customs. According
to the custom a Jat Sikh in Punjab has no power to
alienate his ancestral property by gift of by means of a
Will.
According to the custom the gift of ancestral
property by Will is void ab-initio.
In the matter of
inheritance and succession, the family of the plaintiff and

late Raja Harinder Singh is governed by Rule of
Primogeniture. In the absence of a male living child
according to the custom, the brother succeeds to the
estate.
After the death of late Raja Harinder Singh,
brother of the deceased, the plaintiff has legally inherited

the movable and immovable property left by the late Raja
Harinder Singh. After the death of late Raja Harinder
Singh, a Will has been set up by the defendant which is
purported to have been made by late Raja Harinder Singh
on 1-6-1982. Said Will is fictitious and is a result of of
misrepresentation, undue influence played on Raja
Harinder Singh. Said Will was not made voluntarily by
late Raja
Harinder
Singh
and
was
result
of
misrepresentation, undue influence exercised by the

defendants particularly by Brijinder Pal Singh Brar,

32
Advocate, who is attesting witness and is also a

beneficiary under the alleged Will.
17. It has been averred that late Raja Harinder Singh, due to
death of his only son, was mentally upset and remained
in continuous state of depression till his death and due to
this reason he was not in a position to make the Will
voluntarily as he was left with no capacity to think and
manage his affairs due to the depression. The members of
the Board of Administration particularly Brijinder Pal
Singh exercised undue influence on late Raja Harinder
Singh. As such, Will is null and void. According to the
alleged Will, a Trust in perpetuity has been created. Trust
is perpetuity is void abinitio and is not permissible under
the law. Similarly, the dominant purpose of the alleged
Trust is to look after the old buildings and other movable
properties of the deceased. Similarly, there is no
provision as to how the surplus income is to be utilized.
The accumulation of income of the Trust in perpetuity as
allegedly provided in the Will is not permissible under
the law. The Trust is, therefore, void and is non-existent.
Similarly, the alleged Trust created in the Will is vague
and indefinite and it carries inherent defects and
cumbersome procedure has been laid down for carrying
out the purpose of the Trust which is not possible to
implement and the alleged Trust under the Will is,

33
therefore, void being inexecutable.

18.It has been averred that on the death of late Raja
Harinder Singh, he left the movable and immovable
properties which finds mention in the Will and fully
mentioned in the heading of the plaint. On the death of
late Raja Harinder Singh, the plaintiff being the only
male descendant has succeeded to the property (movable
and immovable) according to the custom and according
to
the
rule
of
Primogeniture.
As
per
rule
of
Primogeniture, the eldest son succeeds to the property to

the exclusion of junior members of the family. In the
absence of male living descendant, the brother succeeds
to the property. Female heirs have no right to succeed to
the Estate of Raja Harinder Singh. Female heirs have no
right to succeed to the property of deceased according to
the custom and rule of Primogeniture prevalent in the
family of late Raja Harinder Singh. The plaintiff called
upon the defendants, number of times, to treat the
alleged Will as void and handover the possession of
movable and immovable properties to him, but all in
vain. Hence, the present suit was filed.
19.In pursuance of notice issued by the Court, the
defendants appeared and filed their written statements.
Defendants no.1 to 3, 5 and 7 filed their joint written
statement in which they, interlia, took legal objections to

34
the effect that pedigree table of the erstwhile Rulers of

the Faridkot State as set out in para no.1 of the plaint is
wrong and misleading. The defendants have given their
pedigree table in para no.1 of the written statement under
preliminary objections. The pedigree table given by the
defendants would show that Rule of Primogeniture was
not followed in Faridkot State even in the matter of
succession to the Gaddi. It is clear from the following
instances:(i)
After the death of Sukhia in 1731, there was a fight

for succession between his three sons. Ultimately,
the estate was divided in three parts. Faridkot and
its adjoining area were retained by Hamir Singh the
second son, Mari Mustafa was assigned to the
youngest son Bir Singh while Kotkapura fell to the
lot of Jodh Singh, the eldest.
(ii)
Hamir Singh, the Chief of Faridkot State leanised

his elder son Dal Singh and appointed his younger
son Mohar Singh as his successor. Thus, Mohar
Singh succeeded to the Gaddi when Hamir Singh
died in 1782.
(iii) Mohar Singh had two sons Charat Singh and

Bhupa. Mohar Singh had more love and affection
for his younger son Bhupa. Charat Singh revolted
against his father and usurped the Gaddi. Mohar

35
Singh was taken prisoner. Though later set at

liberty. He could never regain the Gaddi despite
repeated attempts.
(iv)
Charat Singh was succeeded by his second son

Pahar Singh. Pahar Singh when he died in 1849 had
only one surviving son Wazir Singh who succeeded
him. Further, Wazir Singh was succeeded by his
only son Bikram Singh.
20.The above events of succession show that the claim of the

plaintiff that the Rule of Primogeniture was followed in
Faridkot State, is not at all established.
Rule of
Primogeniture, on which the plaintiff staked his claim in

the present suit, governs succession to impartible estate
according to which the eldest male member of the family
would succeed by survivor-ship to the impartible estate.
It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the privy
council and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the
holder of an impartible estates is entitled to dispose of
the estate during his life time, there is no reason why he
would not be entitled to dispose of the same by a Will.
There is no restraint on the power of alienation of the
holder of the impartible estate as any restraint on the
power would be incompatible with the custom of
impartibility. The impartible estate, though ancestral, is
clothed with the incidents of self acquired and separate

36
property except as regards the right of survivor-ship

which is not inconsistent with the custom of impartibility.
Therefore, even if the alleged claim of the plaintiff that
the impartible estate of Faridkot was subject to the rule of
Primogeniture is accepted, the disposition of the estate by
Raja Harinder Singh by his Will dated 1-6-1982
bequeathing his entire estate to the Trust created thereby
is perfectly valid and cannot be questioned by the
plaintiff claiming himself to be the eldest male survivor of
the family. Rule of Primogeniture, if at all applicable
(though its applicability is vehemently denied) applied to
the 'Raj Gaddi' of the erstwhile Faridkot State. Gaddi is
distinct from the personal properties of the Maharaja. Raj
Gaddi meant ruler-ship of the State which on coming into
force of the constitution took the form of Ruler
recognized by the President of the Indian Union under
clause (22) of the Article 366 of the Constitution. After
the Indian Independence Act, 1947, Faridkot State of
which Raja Harinder Singh was the Ruler, became
integrated into Patiala and East Punjab States Union
(PEPSU) by virtue of the covenant executed by the Rulers
of the merging states, namely Faridkot, Jind, Kapurthala,
Malerkotla, Nabha, Patiala, Kalsia and Nalagarh. The
private properties of Raja Sir Harinder Singh which is the
subject matter of the present suit, was recognized under

37
the above covenant. There was no previous precedent

custom or usage or law governing the private property of
the Ruler. Therefore, neither the rule of Primogeniture
nor any custom governed the succession to the private
property of the Ex Ruler; that the civil Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit; that the Civil
Court at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit. Following properties with the
Union Territory Chandigarh are included in the suit:(i)
Agriculture land at village Kaimbwala.
(ii)
Agriculture land at village Mauli Jagran.
(iii) Agriculture land at village Mani Majra.

(iv)
Constructed fort known as Surajgarh Fort, Mani

Majra, bearing property no.1658, total area 14545.8
Sq. Mt. and shop bearing property no.259/9 to
259/15 on Samadh. Total area 1617.40 Sq. Mt.
(v)
Hotel site no.12 situated in sector 17, Chandigarh.
As regards properties no. (i) to (iv), these were gifted to

Raja Harinder Singh by his grand mother Rani Suraj
Kaur vide registered Gift Deed dated 18-2-1937 alongwith
other landed and immovable property mentioned in the
Gift Deed. Rani Suraj Kaur inherited the same from her
mother Shabdit Kaur which the letter inherited from her
husband Raja Bhagwan Singh. Further, the defendants
pleaded the same stand which has been set up by them in

38
their written statement to the Civil Suit filed by Raj

Kumari Amrit Kaur. At last, a prayer was made for
dismissal of present suit.
21.The defendants no.4 and 6 filed their separate written
statement wherein they took the same stand as was taken
by defendants no.1 to 3,5 and 7.
22.Defendant no.9 and 12, 13 also filed their separate
written statements and took legal objections to the effect
that suit is not maintainable and further took the stand as
set up by the remaining defendants with a prayer for
dismissal of present suit.
23.Defendant no.14 filed her separate written statement
wherein she took legal objections to the effect that no
cause of action has been disclosed. The answering
defendant has filed a suit which is pending before this
Court being civil suit no.228 of 1992. Properties in
question in that suit are the same as the suit properties
herein. However, the said suit is premised on an
independent cause of action. The plaintiff in this suit has
no cause of action against the properties of late Raja
Harinder Singh.
Succession to the suit property is
governed by the Hindu Succession Act whereby the

defendants no.1, 2 and 14 herein are entitled to succeed
to the entire suit property in equal share to the exclusion
of all others. Without prejudice to the aforesaid

39
contention, the answering defendant can also be entitled

to the entirety of the estate of her late father under the
provisions of Raja of Faridkot's Estate Act (Act V of
1948). The plaintiff is not in possession of any suit
property whatsoever, therefore, suit is misconceived. Suit
no.228 of 1992 is directly relevant to the instant
proceedings and statements contained in the said
pleadings may be adopted as and when necessary.
24.On merits, it has been submitted that the pedigree table
is false, partially concocted and incomplete. Said table
deliberately omits reference to the females including the
answering defendant and her two sisters. The answering
defendant is eldest surviving legitimate descendant of the
late Col. Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar. It is denied that
they are or were governed by custom for the purposes of
inheritance and / or succession. Pursuant to the
enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, where-under the
late Raja and the plaintiff are bound by the Law of the
Union of India, no question of inheritance and / or
succession governed by custom arises. Said Act has
abrogated custom and it applies to whole of the India.
Further more, the Hindu Succession Act being a
reformative Act places women on an equal footing with
men pursuant to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It
is admitted that under Hindu Mitakshara Law, late Raja

40
was not competent to dispose of his ancestral property by

way of gift or testamentary disposition to any third party
since the property was the legal entitlement of defendants
no.1,2, and 14 or the answering defendant alone. It is
admitted that said Will is fictitious, fraudulent and is
result of undue influence and is surrounded by suspicious
circumstances. It is denied that the plaintiff is the owner
of whole of the property or any portion of it. Further, the
answering re-iterated her stand as taken in plaint of
connected suit. At last, a prayer was made for dismissal of
present suit.
25.Replications were filed to the written statements in which
all the averments of the plaint were reiterated and that of
the written statements were denied. Ultimately, from the
pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 4-122006. Vide order dated 9-6-2007 additional issues were
framed. Now following issues are pending before this
Court for adjudication:1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the

extent of 1/3rd share of the suit property alongwith
defendants no.1 and 2 being daughters of deceased
under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and
the plaintiff thus is owner of 1/3rd share of the suit
property?OPP
2.
Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled

41
to succeed to the entire estate of her father being

eldest surviving child? OPP
3.
Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled

to succeed as sole owner under Raja of Faridkot
Estate Act, 1948 (Act No.5 of 1948) being senior
most living child? OPP
4.
Whether the property mentioned in Annexure A1 is

joint family and ancestral coparcenary property and
late Raja Harinder Singh had no right to alienate in
any manner?OPP
5.
Whether Raja Harinder Singh was governed by

Hindu Succession Act which had abrogated custom
and plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 inherited
the property in dispute in equal share according to
Hindu Succession Act and plaintiff has become
owner of 1/3rd share of the suit property? OPP
6.
Whether the deceased late Raja Harinder Singh of

Faridkot executed a valid Will dated 1-6-1982? if so,
what is its effect? OPD
7.
Whether the deceased Raja Harinder Singh

executed a valid Trust known as Faridkot Rulling
Family Housing Trust with the plaintiff and the
defendant no.1 and deceased defendant no.2 being
sole beneficiaries? If so, what is its effect? OPD
8.
Whether the defendants are liable to render

42
accounts for the period they have been managing

and receiving income from the properties left by the
deceased late Raja Harinder Singh? OPD
9.
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or

misjoinder of parties? If so, what is its effect? OPD
10.
Whether the suit is not properly valued for the

purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is
its effect? OPD
11.
Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to

try the suit? OPD
12.
Whether the Trust known as Maharwal Khewaji

Trustis a valid legal entity? If so, what is its effect?
OPD
13.
Whether the family of Raja Harinder Singh and

defendant no.6 Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh in
matters of inheritance and succession is governed
by Rule of Primogeniture and in the absence of
male lineal child according to custom,brother
succeeded to the estate? OPD-6.
14.
Whether Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh defendant

no.6 inherited all the immovable and movable
properties of late Raja Harinder Singh under the
law of Primogeniture? OPD-6.
15.
Whether according to Article 14 of the covenants of

Pepsu to which late Raja Harinder Singh was

43
signatory, succession was according to law and

custom to the Gaddi of each Covenanting States
was guaranteed and according to which plaintiff
under custom is entitled to inheritance to the estate
of Raja Harinder Singh under rule of Primogeniture
and the female heirs have no right to succeed to the
property of late Raja Harinder Singh according to
custom and rule of Primogeniture? OPD-6
16.
Relief.
26.It is pertinent to mention here that civil suit Civil Suit No.
4193 / 21-8-2010/4-4-1992 titled Kanwar Manjit Inder
Singh Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others was
ordered to be consolidated and thereafter evidence was
ordered to be led in the Civil Suit 473/23-7-2010/15-101992 titled as Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani
Deepinder Kaur and others
27.To prove the suit, plaintiff has examined the following
witnesses:PW1 -Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur @ Amrit Harpal Singh,
plaintiff herself.
PW2 -Sh. Dalip Singh, Kanungo, F.C. Appeals, Shimla.
PW3 -Mrs. Kusum Shahi, Record Clerk of District Courts,
Chandigarh.
PW4 -Kanwar Bharatinder Singh son of late Kanwar
Manjitinder Singh.

44
Thereafter, evidence of plaintiff Raj Kumar Amrit Kaur

was closed on 21-7-2012 and evidence of plaintiff Manjit
Inder Singh in connected case was closed by his learned
counsel on 5-10-2012.
28.In the name of documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have
relied upon various documents which are on record and
these could be discussed at relevant stage, if required.
29.On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of plaintiffs, the
defendants have examined the following witnesses:DW1 -Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh Brar Advocate, District
Courts, Faridkot.
DW2 -Sh. Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Finger
Prints Expet, Patiala.
DW3 -Maharani Deepinder Kaur Sahiba, defendant
herself.
DW4 -Sh. Jagrup Singh son of Sh. Kirpal Singh, r/o
Dashmesh Nagar, Main Road, Faridkot.
DW5 -Sh. Madan Mohan Devgan son of Pandit Pran Nath
Devgan, Doggar Basti, Faridkot.
DW6 -Dr. Ravinder Goel son of Dh. Devinder Goel, r/o
Balbir Hospital Campus, Faridkot.
Thereafter, defendants closed their evidence.
30.In the name of documentary evidence, the defendants
have also relied upon various documents which are on
record and these could be discussed at relevant stage if

45
required.
31. Thereafter, chance of rebuttal was given to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff examined Ms. Jassy Anand, Handwriting and
Finger Print Expert as PW5 into rebuttal evidence and
thereafter rebuttal evidence was closed by learned
counsel for the plaintiffs.
32. I have heard Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and
Learned counsel for the defendants at length and perused
the case file very carefully with their assistance. Issuewise findings, with reasons thereof, are as under:ISSUES NO.1 TO 8, 12 TO 15
1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed

to the extent of 1/3rd share of the suit
property alongwith defendants no.1 and 2
being daughters of deceased
under
the
provisions of Hindu Succession Act and the

plaintiff thus is owner of 1/3rd share of the
suit property?OPP
2.
Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is

entitled
to succeed to the entire estate of
her father being eldest surviving child? OPP

3.
Whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is

entitled
to succeed as sole owner under
Raja of Faridkot Estate Act, 1948 (Act

No.5 of 1948) being senior
most living

46
child? OPP
4.
Whether
the
property
Annexure A1 is
ancestral
mentioned
joint
coparcenary
in
family
and
property
and
late Raja Harinder Singh had no right to

alienate in any manner?OPP
5.
Whether Raja Harinder Singh was governed

by
Hindu Succession Act which had
abrogated custom
and
plaintiff
defendants no.1 and 2 inherited
and
the
property in dispute in equal share according

to Hindu Succession Act and plaintiff has
become owner of 1/3rd share of the suit
property? OPP
6.
Whether the deceased late Raja Harinder

Singh of
Faridkot executed a valid Will
dated 1-6-1982? if so, what is its effect? OPD

7.
Whether the deceased Raja Harinder Singh

executed a valid Trust known as Faridkot
Ruling Family Housing Trust with the
plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and
deceased
defendant
no.2
being
sole
beneficiaries? If so, what is its effect? OPD

8.
Whether the defendants are liable to render

accounts for the period they have been

47
managing and receiving income from the

properties left by the deceased late Raja
Harinder Singh? OPD
12.
Whether the Trust known as Maharwal

Khewaji Trustis a valid legal entity? If so,
what is its effect? OPD
13.
Whether the family of Raja Harinder Singh

and defendant no.6 Kanwar Manjit Inder
Singh
in matters of
succession is governed
inheritance and
by
Rule
of
Primogeniture and in the absence of

male lineal child according to custom,
brother succeeded to the estate? OPD-6.
14.
Whether
Kanwar
Manjit
Inder
Singh
defendant no.6 inherited all the immovable

and movable properties of late Raja
Harinder
Singh
under
the
law
of
Primogeniture? OPD-6.
15.
Whether according to Article 14 of the

covenants of
Pepsu to which late Raja
Harinder Singh was signatory, succession

was according to law and custom
Gaddi of each Covenanting States
to
the
was
guaranteed and according to which plaintiff

under custom is entitled to inheritance to

48
the estate of Raja Harinder Singh under rule

of Primogeniture and the female heirs have
no right to succeed to the property of late
Raja Harinder Singh according to custom
and rule of Primogeniture? OPD-6
33.All these issues are inter-connected and inter-linked, so
they are hereby taken up together as common evidence is
to be discussed for their disposal and to avoid any
repetition.
34.Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted his
written arguments as well as oral arguments whereby he
vehemently argued that plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur
is real daughter of late Raja Harinder Singh, testator of
the Will dated 1-6-1982 Ex DW2/B. This Will was never
executed by Raja Harinder Singh during his life time. The
Will dated 1-6-1982 is result of fraud, misrepresentation
and indue influence. Burden was rested upon the
defendants to prove the execution of Will, but they have
totally failed to prove that the Will under question was
executed by Raja Harinder Singh during his lifetime. The
plaintiff is the eldest daughter of Raja Harinder Singh
and she was on visiting terms with her father and there
was no reason to deprive of her from her legitimate claim
to inherit his property. Brother of the plaintiff passed
away in the year 1981 and younger sister Maheepinder

49
Kaur died in the year 2001 and her mother Rani Narinder
Kaur died in 1986. Her maternal grand mother had
earlier died in 1985. In this manner, now only the
plaintiff and defendant no.1 Maharani Deepinder Kaur
have left to inherit the property of late Raja Harinder
Singh. The plaintiff enjoyed very loving and harmonious
relationship with her parents and it is crystal clear vide
Ex P2 to Ex P43 and Ex P55 to Ex P66 which is
correspondence of letters took place between Raja
Harinder Singh and the plaintiff and other family
members. These letters reflect that the plaintiff and her
father enjoyed close, cordial and healthy relationship as
is expected between any father and his daughter. DW3
Maharani Deepinder Kaur has also stated in her
cross examination that Raja made the Faridkot Family
Settlement Trust in 1955 of which all the four children
were beneficiaries.
The Trust, based in UK, provided
income to all the four children and was divided into two
equal portions of which the income of one portion was
paid to Raja's son during his lifetime and the income of
second portion was shared equally amongst the three
daughters. It has been admitted that after the death of
the youngest sister in 2001, her share of the income is
being shared equally between the two surviving sisters.
Moreover, the income which was previously being paid to

50
the Raja's son, is being paid to the plaintiff on the basis of

the application of rule of Primogeniture as applicable to
the dynasty. This witness has admitted in her cross
examination that the plaintiff attended upon her father
during his illness and she looked after her father. This
witness also admitted that plaintiff was present when her
father passed away in Delhi and she accompanied the
body to Faridkot in the funeral van. The witness has also
not denied that in 1972 litigation was pending in the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in which late Raja had
taken
the
categorical
stand
that
the
Rule
of
Primogeniture applied to the Royal family of Faridkot

absolutely. Vide Ex PW2/1, Ex PW2/2 and Ex
PW2/3, it is also very much clear that Raja was
intending to give land situated in Himachal Pradesh to
his daughters.
35.Learned counsel further argued that the attesting witness
of alleged Will Mr. Barjinder Pal Singh DW1 has also
failed to prove the due execution of the Will in question.
DW1 has stated that he had seen the original registered
Will dated 1-6-1982 produced by Lalit Mohan Gupta,
Chief Executive, Maharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot. But
Lalit Mohan Gupta never appeared as a witness to
produce the said Will in evidence and to prove its proper
custody with him and no opportunity was given to the

51
plaintiff to cross examine this person and request of

plaintiff was declined by the Court. Therefore, adverse
inference is to be drawn under section 114 of Indian
Evidence Act against the defendants. DW1 has also
stated that he reached Raj Mahal at about 5:00 p.m. on 16-1982 and he was called by Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar
through a Nafar in Raj Mahal and S. Jagir Singh
Lamberdar was present there. Raja Sahib had told both of
them that he himself had drafted and got typed the Will
and stated that it was his holograph Will and he read over
its contents to both of them and then the Raja had signed
the Will in their presence followed by both of them in his
presence. Raja had also written the date of the Will as 1st
June 1982 in his own hand in their presence and signed
each and every page of the document. DW1 also stated
that this Will was registered by Sh. Sadhu Ram, Tehsildar
/ Sub Registrar, Faridkot by arriving in Raj Mahal on
commission basis alongwith his staff and the Will was
presented before him for registration by the testator and
thereafter Sub Registrar had made endorsement of
presentation thereon and it was duly signed by the
testator.
This witness made an attempt to prove the
signatures of testator, but in fact this Will was not signed

by the testator nor it was registered legally in accordance
with law by the Sub Registrar, Faridkot in Raja Mahal on

52
that date and it is full of suspicious circumstances. DW1

Brijinder Pal Singh Brar has made an attempt to project
himself as having a close and personal relationship with
the late Raja and because of that he was a witness to the
Will. However, his cross examination clearly brings out
the fact that this witness was not at all close to late Raja
and in fact was playing in the hands of defendant no.4
Rajnit Singh Wahniwal. DW1 Brijinder Pal Singh has
been practicing as an Advocate since 1968 and has
admitted that he has never signed on blank papers. He
was confronted with summoned record of office of Sub
Registrar and he admitted that it is his signatures and
signatures of other witness Jagir Singh at one place and
signatures of Raja Harinder Singh at two places on blank
page i.e. reverse of page 1 of Gurmukhi Will Ex PX2. Ex
PX2 is the certified copy of alleged Will in English and
alleged Will in Gurmukhi as pasted in Book 3 register of
Sub Registrar, Faridkot. Endorsement paragraphs in both
the disputed English Wills have been written above the
pre-existing first signatures readable as Harinder Singh
as on the blank page of the Gurmukhi Will. The other
legal processes regarding the registration of two disputed
English Wills have been completed in the similar blank
spaces as on the blank page of the Gurmukhi Will
between first and second signatures readable as Harinder

53
Singh. Similarly, other formalities have been completed

in English Wills in the blank spaces as on the blank page
of the Gurmukhi Will between the signatures of both
witnesses and second signatures of Raja Harinder Singh.
This proves the fact that first signatures of Raja were
prepared on blank papers and then the Will was typed on
those blank papers and therefore, it further substantiate
that it is a forged and fabricated Will and this fact has
also been observed in detail by PW5 Dr.Jassy Anand who
has been examined by the plaintiff to strengthen her case.
36.Learned counsel argued that DW1 who claims to have
been called by Raja Harinder Singh to become witness on
the alleged Will, is not even aware about the number of
copies of Will were there and how many copies were
signed by Raja and witnesses. Testimony of DW1 is of
frail nature and firstly he stated that on 14-2-2013 in his
evidence that there were two copies of Will, then he
stated that both the copies were taken out as printouts
and he also stated that there was no other document with
Maharaja except the copies of the Will. He also stated
that Maharaja signed both the copies of Will and then he
himself and Jagir Singh witness put their signatures on
the said two copies of the Will. This witness never stated
about putting of the signatures by Raja Harinder Singh
on Will scribed in Gurmukhi script. Even different pens

54
were used by two witnesses to put their signatures and it

is evident on the perusal of the Wills. DW1 has
contradicted himself with earlier statement because
earlier he had stated that there was no cuttings on the
Will, whereas in his cross examination he admitted that
there was typed cutting and these lapses are sufficient to
disprove the execution of the Will. Further, DW1 has
stated in his cross examination that he did not remember
whether Sub Registrar took all the Wills alongwith him or
he left any of it with Raja Harinder Singh after
registration. He does not remember whether the officials
of the Sub Registrar brought any register alongwith them
for the purpose of registration of the document. He does
not remember whether the officials of the Sub Registrar
made any entry in the register while sitting in the Raj
Mahal regarding registration of the Will. The seals and
endorsement and entries were made in the Raj Mahal in
his presence. It is visible by the naked eyes that dates in
two disputed Wills in English Ex DW2/B and Ex PX2
are written in hand i.e. 1st June 1982 appear to have been
written by different persons and it has been falsely
claimed by the defendants that they were written by Raja.
Suggestion put to DW1 has been deliberately denied.
Even the plaintiff's expert PW5 Dr. Jassy Anand has also
observed in detail vide her report Ex PW5/1 by

55
comparing all the numbers and alphabets with the

standard writing and with each other, the date has been
written on both the Wills by some different person. He
further contended that since the Will under question is
alleged to be purported and executed by Raja Harinder
Singh and he was well educated and he was of the stature
who never committed even a spelling mistake and this
fact has also been admitted by DW3 Maharani Deepinder
Kaur who is real daughter of Raja Harinder Singh. Using
of word as harrowgraph which is also written as
holograph was never construed to be used by Raja
Harinder Singh if he happened to execute his Will. These
circumstances clearly establishes the fact that Raja
Harinder Singh was not in sound state of mind after the
death of his only son in the year 1981. He was under
depression after the death of his son and he was never
interested to ignore the plaintiff to inherit his property.
Mere fact that Will is registered, is not sufficient to prove
its due execution. Propounder of the Will was required
to explain the suspicious circumstances in the Will under
question. There is no provision for wife and unmarried
sisters depending upon the testator. Married daughter
has been completely disinherited without any reason.
Propounder got sole benefit from the Will. Propounders
took part in execution of the Will. Signatures of testator

56
are not appearing to be his usual signatures. Signatures

of testator are not in the same ink and pen. Testator used
to sign blank legal papers for use in his cases in Court and
sent them through his servants to his lawyer and also to
his
Mukhtiar.
Attesting
interested parties.
witnesses
examined
were
Will was not read over to testator
before he admitted to its execution.

37.Learned
counsel
further
argued
that
Rule
of
Primogeniture is applicable by dint of which the plaintiff

and defendant no.1 have right to inherit the property of
Raja Harinder Singh in equal shares. Section 5 (2) of
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 also confirms the survival of
custom amongst Ruler family, though for others it has
been abolished. By these submissions, he made a prayer
that suit of plaintiff may kindly be decreed with costs.
38.In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon
the law laid down in cases Benga Behera Vs Braja
Kishore
Nanda
2007
(3)
RCR
(Civil)
240,
S.R.Srinivasa Vs S. Padmavathamma 2010 (4) JT

296, Joseph Johan Peter Sandy Vs Veronica
Thomas Rajkumar 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 461, Vidya
Sagar Soni Vs State 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 871,
Suraj Lamp & Industries Vs State of Haryana
2011 (4) CCC 0558, Shrimati Shanti Devi Vs State
AIR 1982 Delhi 453 (1), Tara Singh Vs Satinder

57
Pal Singh 2013(1) PLR 228, Haji Mohammad

Ekramul Vs The State of WB AIR 1959 SC 488,
Mrs. Veenu Handa Vs Narinder Kumar AIR 1984
P&H 99, Ravichandran Vs State 2010 (2) CCC
0554, S.R.Srinivasa Vs S.Padmavathamma 2010
(5) SCC 274, Adivekka and ors Vs Hanamavva
Kom Venkatesh AIR 2007 SC 2025, Madhukar D.
Shende Vs Tarabai Aba Shedage AIR 2002 SC
637, Kartar Kaur and another Vs Milkho and
others 1996 (11) SCC 626, Ram Piari Vs Bhagwant
AIR 1990 SC 1742, Shashi Kumar Banerjee Vs
Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964SC 529, Rani
Purnima Debi Vs Kumar Khagendra AIR 1962 SC
567, Ramchandra Rambux Vs Champabai and
others AIR 1965 SC 354, H. Venkatachala Iyengar
Vs B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 (1),
Joseph Johan Peter Sandy Vs Veronica Thomas
2013(2) RCR (Civil) 461, Charan Singh Vs Amar
Singh 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 311, Mukhtiar Kaur Vs
Hardev Singh 2011(2) CCC 854, Dayanandi Vs
Rukma D. Suvarna 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 856,
Gurdial Kaur VS Chand Kaur 2012 (2) PLR 753,
His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Vs Her
Highness Maharani Sarojini 1994 Supp (1) SCC
734, State of Gujrat Vs Dr. R.B. Chandrachud

58
1971 AIR 846, Prem Nath Kaul Vs The State of JK

1959 AIR 749, Vishnu Partap Singh Vs State of
MP 1990 (Supp) SCC 43, Tikka Shatrujit Singh Vs
Brig.
Sukhjit
Singh
RFA
(OS)
No.23/2004,
Kunwar Shri Vir Rajendra Singh Vs The Union of

India AIR 1970 SC 1946, Col. HH Sir Harinder
Singh Vs The commissioner of income tax 1972
(4) SCC 536, Baijnath Prasad Vs Tej Bali Singh
AIR 1921 Privy Council 62.
39.On the other hand, learned counsels for defendants have
argued the matter orally and also submitted written
arguments to support the case of defendants to the effect
that late Maharaja Harinder Singh executed registered
Will
dated
1-6-1982
Ex.DW2/B
in
favour
of
testamentary Trust known as Maharawal Khewaji Trust

by
which
Maharani
Deepinder
Kaur
was
made
Chairperson and members of Board of Administration

comprising
of
Controller
H.H.
Personal
Estates,
Agriculture Adviser, Accounts and Treasury Officer and

one member from Mehmuana family in rotation of five
years were made members of the Board of Trustees.
After demise of Raja Harinder Singh Brar on 16-10-1989
in Batra Hospital, he was brought to Faridkot and on 1710-1989 he was cremated with royal family traditions in
Shahi Samadhan. On 20-10-1989 Board of Trustees and

59
executors assembled in Moti Mahal Qila Mubarik and

S.Umrao Singh Dhaliwal read over the contents of the
Will in presence of Board of Trustees and executors. All
of them accepted the offices with which they were
invested under the said Will and passed Resolution No.1
dated 20-10-1989. Board of Trustees took over the
possession, control and management of the entire estate
of the deceased with the assent of the executors. Since
thereafter, Board of Trustees have been in possession,
control and management of the property of late Raja
Harinder Singh. Land located in different revenue estates
have been mutated in the name of the Trust and urban
property has also been transferred in the name of the
Trust. On 26-10-1989, last rites of Raja Harinder Singh
were performed in Qila Mubarik, Faridkot. S. Karnail
Singh Doad proclaimed in the huge gathering that late
Raja Harinder Singh had executed registered Will dated
1-6-1982 bequeathing his entire estate to a Trust for
public benefit.
40.Learned counsel further argued that neither the suit filed
by plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur nor the suit filed by
plaintiff Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh are maintainable.
They have attacked upon the Will executed by Raja
Harinder Singh during his lifetime. But they have totally
failed to prove that Will was never executed by Raja

60
Harinder Singh during his lifetime. The Will is genuine

and was voluntarily executed by Raja Harinder Singh. It
is not forged or fabricated. Suitable provisions were made
for maintenance of wife of testator and for daughters
also. There is nothing un-natural in the Will by dint of
which the Will has to be ignored. The Will is registered
document and the registration of the document itself give
authenticity that it was executed by the testator. The Will
is executed to alter the natural mode of succession and its
very nature is bound to result in either reducing or
depriving the share of natural heirs. The Will in question
Ex DW2/B is fairly a long document and spread over
nine pages. Same had been signed by late Raja Faridkot
on each and every page and the testator claimed the Will
to be his holograph testament/ Will. Bare perusal of the
provisions made in the Will shows that the same is valid,
genuine and has been executed by late Raja Harinder
Singh Brar of his free volition and without any influence
of any type. The Will was executed by the testator to
constitute a Trust in the name of Maharwal Khewaji
Trust only with a purpose that after his death, his
property be maintained by the Trust for betterment of
public. In order to prove the due execution of Will, the
defendants have examined Sh. Barjinder Pal Singh Brar,
Advocate as DW1 and this witness in his chief

61
examination filed affidavit Ex DW2/B wherein he fully

supported the case of the defendants by proving on
record that the Will was read over to the testator and
both the attesting witnesses put their signatures in the
presence of testator. DW1 has also proved his signatures
on the Will in question and of another attesting witness.
He also stated that the Sub Registrar read out the
contents of Will to the testator in the presence of
attesting witnesses and late Raja Harinder Singh had
acknowledged that he executed the Will voluntarily.
Thereafter,
the
same
was
registered
by
making
endorsement which was duly signed by late Raja

Harinder Singh in the presence of attesting witnesses and
thereafter attesting witnesses signed the Will in the
presence of testator. Witness was cross examined by both
the plaintiffs, but nothing was brought on record in the
cross examination of this witness to disbelieve the due
execution of the Will in question. It has also come in the
evidence of this witness that two typed copies of Will
were prepared by Raja Harinder Singh Brar by two
different typewriters and Punjabi translation was also
prepared and executed and was presented before Sub
Registrar and all of these were duly signed by the testator
Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar and also by both the
attesting witnesses and attested by the Sub Registrar.

62
Using of word Horrowgraph in the body of the Will is

merely a typographical mistake and it does not go to the
root of the case to disbelieve the proper execution of the
Will. The plaintiffs have also admitted the signatures of
the testator on the Will by putting suggestion to the
witness in the cross examination. Witness was cross
examined by the plaintiffs to show that Ranjit Singh
Wahniwal, Advocate was the main beneficiary and he
fabricated the Will. But this plea is beyond pleadings and
should be ignored. Moreover, from the evidence on file it
is proved that Ranjit Singh Wahnial derived no benefit
from the Will under question. Attesting witness Barjinder
Pal Singh DW1, has clearly stated in his affidavit Ex
DW2/B that testator was physically and mentally fit and
capable of making rational judgment and he voluntarily
executed the Will in question. No undue influence was
exercised upon Raja Harinder Singh Brar to execute the
Will. No cross examination was made by the counsel for
both the plaintiffs on this deposition regarding mental
capacity of the testator. It is well settled law that if the
part of the statement of the witness is not challenged in
cross examination, it means that point has been
admitted. In cross examination, a suggestion was put by
the counsel for the plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur
beyond pleadings that the alleged signatures of Raja

63
Hairnder Singh on the Will in question were already

there before it was typed. It was also suggested that the
signatures of the testator were already there and the Will
was typed subsequently. Learned counsel for the plaintiff
further suggested that the alleged signatures of the
testator and signatures of DW1 Brijinder Pal Singh Brar
and other attesting witness were already there on blank
papers and subsequently will was typed on those papers.
From these suggestions, it can be clearly concluded that
the plaintiff after having failed to extract any kind of
doubt with regard to the execution and registration of the
Will, tried to take the matter in other way. Further, in
order to dispel the suspicious circumstances as alleged by
the plaintiff in her plaint, the defendant no.1 Maharani
Deepinder Kaur herself stepped into the witness box as
DW3. She stood well in her lengthy cross examination
and has very successfully dispelled the allegations on the
Will. Plaintiff Amrit Kaur was ignored by the testator
Raja Harinder Singh because she performed marriage
with the employee of Raja Harinder Singh and Raja was
not happy on performance of marriage with his
employee. She has also no right to inherit the property of
her father as per law. Another plaintiff has also no right
to set up the rule of Primogeniture in order to succeed the
property of Raja Harinder Singh as the rule of

64
Primogeniture was not applicable to the suit property and

now only the Hindu Succession Act is applicable.
41.Learned Counsel further argued that in order to meet-out
the allegation regarding genuineness of the signatures of
the testator upon the Will, the defendants have got the
will examined from renowned document Expert Diwan
K.S.Puri and Sh. Navdeep Gupta who gave the report Ex
DW2/1 dated 21-1-195 that disputed and standard
signatures are in the handwriting of one and the same
person. The standard signatures have been taken from
the registered power of attorney dated 4-11-1966, 14-51984, 16-2-1989. The plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur
tried to rebut the above report of reputed document
experts by examining Jassy Anand who gave very
astonishing report that signatures on the Will are copying
forgery when this is not the case of plaintiff herself. Sh.
M.S. Khaira, learned counsel for the plaintiff conducted
the cross examination
of DW1 and suggested to the
witness Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh Advocate that signatures

of the testator were already there and the Will was
fabricated upon the existing signatures. It is pertinent to
mention that Dr. Jassy Anand has been disbelieved by
various courts in various cases. The plaintiff during the
pendency of the suit had forgotten her pleadings and
during the evidence started claiming that she is entitled

65
to the properties on account of rule of primogeniture

because she is the eldest daughter. This stand of the
plaintiff is contrary to her own pleadings and is liable to
be ignored completely. It is well settled law that females
are not entitled to claim inheritance on the rule of
Primogeniture. Moreover, the rule of Primogeniture was
not applicable in the year 1989 when the succession has
opened. In the original plaint and amended plaint, Raj
Kumari Amrit Kaur has pleaded that the will in question
is not permissible under the customary law and suit land
is ancestral, co-parcenary and joint Hindu family
property of the plaintiff and on that account also the
Karta could not make a Will. This plea is wholly
untenable. Females are not co-parceners. Only male
lineal
descendants
are
co-parceners.
Moreover,
daughter after she is married has ceased to be a member

of her father's family. The plaintiff has failed to plead as
to who were the members of the coparcenary if any. The
plaintiff had also miserably failed to produce any
evidence to prove that the property in hands of late Col.
Harinder Singh was ancestral. Trust has been validly
created. Will in question is a complete code which
regulates the working of the Trust. The Trust is in
possession of the suit properties as is clear from the
resolution no.1 dated 20-10-1989 and since then the

66
Trust has been in possession of the suit properties as

owner to the notice knowledge of the plaintiff and the
plaintiff has not claimed the possession but in-fact has
abandoned her consequential reliefs.
By these
submissions, they made a prayer that suits of the

plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed.
42.In support of his arguments, learned counsels relied
upon the law laid down in cases Naresh Charan Dass
Gupta Vs Paresh Charan Dass AIR 1955 SC 363,
Surendra Pal Vs Dr. Saraswati Aroma AIR 1974
SC 1999, Pentakota Satyanarayana Vs Pentakota
Seetharatnam 2005 (4) RCR(Civil) 615, Babu
Singh Vs Ram Sahai 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 154,
Bellachi
Vs
Pakeeran
2009
(12)
SCC95,
Poosathurai Vs Kannappa Chettiar AIR 1920

Privy Council 65, Alok Kumar Vs Asoke Kumar
AIR 1982 Calcutta 599, Parveen Kumar Vs State
of Haryana 1991 PLJ 95, Bhag Singh VS Nek
Singh 1994 PLJ 449, Ram Narain Singh Vs Smt.
Gurinder Kaur 1997 (2) PLR 1, Bondar Singh Vs
Nihal Singh 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 222, Mal Singh
VS Mohinder Singh 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 702,
Charan Singh Vs Balwant Singh AIR 1975 P&H
179, Sundri Vs Lala Ram 2005 (2) RCR (Civil)
140, Biru Ram Vs Barkha Ram 1997 (1) RCR

67
(Civil) 545, Gurdial Singh VS Kulwant Kaur 1989

(2) RRR 142, Ashok Kumar Vs Avtar Singh 1987
(2) PLR 443, Sadhu Ram Vs Jang Singh 2012(3)
RCR (Civil) 517, Rabindra Nath Vs Panchanan
Banerjee
AIR
1995
SC
1684,
Air
Marshal
Mohinder Singh Vs Narender Singh Rao 2010(3)

RCR (Civil) 508, Ramabai Padamakar Patil Vs
Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande 2003 (4) RCR
(Civil) 92, Savithri Vs Karthyayani Amma AIR
2008 SC 300, Smt Asha Rani Vs Controller of
Estate Duty 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 210, Mehar
Singh Vs Baltej Singh 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 780
and Haji Ishak Vs Faiz Mohomed Sultan AIR (30)
1943 Sind 134.
43.Sh. Vinod K. Kataria, counsel for defendants No.3(4), 6
and 9 has argued that Raja Harinder Singh had executed
registered Will dated 1-6-1982 by which he created
testamentary Trust known as Maharwal Khewaji Trust of
which
his
own
two
daughters
namely
Maharani
Deepinder Kaur and Raj Kumari Maheepinder Kaur were

appointed as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Board
of Trustees consisted of three members of Board of
Administration and one member from Mehmuana family
close collateral of Raja Harinder Singh. First Trustee was
Major Gurdeepinder Singh Brar son of S. Bahadur Kartar

68
Singh Brar. The Will was witnessed by Sh. Brijinder Pal

Singh Brar,Advocate and S. Jagir Singh Lamberdar Bir
Bholluwala. Testator died on 16-10-1989 in Batra
Hospital, New Delhi due to total renal failure. His son
Tikka Harmohinder Singh had predeceased him on 1310-1981 after prolonged illness. The Board of Trustees are
Legal Adviser and Additional Legal Adviser are Ex-officio
member and Accounts and Treasury Officer was also
member of Board of Executors. Miss Shanta Sharma,
Executor had later on resigned.
The Will has been
challenged by Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur on the ground that

rule of Primogeniture is not applicable. It is feudal law. In
the amended plaint, she alternatively claimed the entire
estate being eldest daughter of Raja Harinder Singh and
also claimed on the basis of Raja Faridkot State Act, 1948.
To prove the execution of Will, the defendants have
examined Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh, Advocate attesting
witness of the Will in question. This witness has fully
proved the due execution of the Will and nothing was
suggested to him that the Will is result of fraud or undue
influence. By these submissions, he made a prayer that
suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
the law laid down in cases Chaturbhuj Pande Vs
Collector Raigarh AIR 1969 SC 255, Ram Chand

69
Ganesh Dass Vs Sardara Singh AIR 1962 Punjab

382 and Surjit Kaur Vs Balwinder Kaur 2011 (1)
CCC 604.
45.Sh. G.K.Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiff Kanwar
Manjit Inder Singh of the consolidated case has
vehemently argued that the Will under question is forged
and fabricated document. The Will under question is
result of undue influence. The propounder of the Will has
failed to prove that testator was in state of sound
disposing mind at the time of execution of said Will.
Onus to prove the execution and registration of the Will
was on the propounder and defendants no.1 & 13 are the
propounders of the alleged Will and they have totally
failed to discharge the onus of proving the due execution
of the Will. DW1 has been examined by the prepounders
as an attesting witness of the alleged Will and the
evidence of DW1 is untrustworthy and is not liable to be
relied upon. He is an interesting witness and this fact has
been admitted by him in his testimony that he is nephew
of Sh. R.S. Wahniwal, Advocate who is beneficiary under
the Will in question. DW1 has admitted that he has been
practicing with Sh. R.S.Wahniwal, Advocate and this
admission itself is sufficient to clinch the matter that the
alleged Will was procured by the propounders in
connivance with the attesting witnesses by exercising

70
undue influence upon the testator. There is every

possibility of manufacturing of false Will by using the
signed blank papers of the Testator. Raja Harinder Singh
was in litigation with other people and his blank signed
papers were procured in the Court by his Advocate and in
this process, there is every possibility of manufacturing of
false and fictitious Will of the Testator by writing the
recitals on the blank papers. Witness DW1 has also
admitted in his cross examination that he started practice
and was occupying the chamber jointly with Sh. R.S.
Wahniwal Advocate. In the Will in question, Sh. R.S.
Wahniwal has been appointed executor under the Will
and besides this, fixed pay honorarium/salary has been
given to him. The witness also admitted that there were
printed Vakalatnamas jointly with S. Ranjit Singh,
Advocate. Vide Ex. P27 to Ex. PX 60 Vakalatnamas of
Brijinder Pal Singh and Ranjit Singh Wahniwal are on
record in which name of both are printed and signed.
DW1 admitted that he was in joint practice with the
executor, a close relation and S. Ranjit Singh Wahniwal
was his mentor.
46.Learned counsel argued that as per Indian Succession
Act, role of the Executor comes to an end when the Will is
executed and the possession and control of the property
is handed over. But in the present case, there is ongoing

71
role of executors of the Will since (1989) death of Raja

and would continue forever unless the Will is set aside.
The executors are getting regular salary and have full
interference and control over the Board of Trustees who
are managing the huge Estate of late Raja spread in
several States. All these circumstances are sufficient to
create doubt in the due execution of the Will.
47.Learned counsel further contended that report Ex
DW2/B was prepared by expert Sh. Navdeep Gupta on
21-1-1995 only regarding the signatures of Raja Harinder
Singh on the alleged Will and not regarding its contents.
The act of the defendants is highly suspicious as they got
the report prepared in 1995 when even the issue
regarding alleged Will was not framed. Issues were
framed on 4-12-2006. The defendants have claimed that
they have taken out the alleged Will from the locker of
Raja. It is strange that even then they were not sure as to
whether there were signatures of late Raja on the alleged
Will Ex DW2/B. Hurried preparation of the report
without requirement is suspicious and evidence of Sh.
Navdeep Gupta strengthens the suspicion even further.
PW5 Dr. Jassy Anand has fully refuted and rebutted the
evidence of Sh. Navdeep Gupta. Further, witness DW3
Maharani Deepinder Kaur who is real daughter of the
Testator of the Will has admitted that her father was

72
highly educated and he studied in Atkinson College,

Lahore. Her father was excellent student and he got gold
medal for best essay writing in English language in the
said college in 1932. Mistakes which are appearing in the
body of the Will in question are also creating doubt in
due execution of the Will and Raja who was well
educated, was not supposed to commit any mistake.
These are the circumstances which are creating doubt
and suspicion in due execution of the Will under
question.
48.Learned counsel further argued that the plaintiff Kanwar
Manjit Inder Singh has right to succeed the property of
his brother by virtue of rule of Primogeniture. Custom of
Primogeniture is prevailing in the Faridkot Royal family.
Testator was incompetent to deal with the property by
way of Will with regard to property for which custom of
Primogeniture is applicable. Hindu Succession Act has no
over-riding effect over the rule of Primogeniture and
there are catena of authorities in which it was held that
rule of Primogeniture has not ceased to exist even after
passing of Hindu Succession Act. DW3 has also admitted
that her father was well aware about the rule of
Primogeniture and this rule was applicable to the Royal
family of Faridkot. Faridkot family are Jat Sikh Hindu as
distinct from Muslim Jats. Therefore, Hindu law and

73
custom are also applicable to them, though Hindu

Succession Act 1956 is not applicable in view of
exemption contained in section 5(ii) thereof. Though the
ancestral impartible estate survived on account of the
exemption contained in section 5(ii) of the Hindu
Succession Act 1956, but with abolition of Titles and
Privy Purses by a constitutional amendment of the
Constitution, all traces of royalty have been effaced from
it, though protection u/s 5(ii) continues to exist. Will is
also liable to be ignored on the ground that it has created
a Trust in perpetuity which is not permissible under the
law. By these submissions, he made a prayer that suit of
plaintiff Kanwar Manjitinder Singh be decreed and suit
instituted by Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur be dismissed.
the law laid down in cases State of Haryana Vs Amar
Nath Bansal 1997 (1) SCC 700, Col. HH Sir
Harinder Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
1972 (4) SCC 536, Sarojini Devi Vs Uma Devi 1994
Supl.I SCC 735, Tikka Shatrujit Singh Vs Brig.
Sukhjit Singh ILR 2011 (1) Del 704, Talat Fatima
HasanVs Nawa Sayed Murtaza Ali AIR 2002 AII
119, LIC of India Vs Ram Pal Singh 2010 (2) CCC
315 (SC), Karnail Singh Vs Kalra brothers 2009
(2) RCR (Civil) 380, Ravichandran Vs State 2010

74
(2) CCC 554 (SC), Improvement Trust Patiala Vs

Jaswinder Kaur 2010 (4) CCC 534 (P&H), M/S JP
Builders Vs A. Ramadas Rao 2011 (1) CCC 846,
Rajinder Parshad Vs Darshana Devi 2001 (3) CCC
622 (SC), Jaswinder Singh Vs Kartar Singh 2004
(2) HLR 347, Charan Singh Vs Amar Singh 2012
(1) CCC 601, Jagtar Singh Vs Mangat Saini 2011
(2) CCC 287, Malkiat Kaur Vs Hardev Singh 2011
(2) CCC 854, Maktul Vs MST Manbhari and
others 1959 SCR 1099, Commissioner of Gift Tax
Vs Maharaja Amrinder Singh 2004 (3) RCR
(Civil) 376 and Mihan and another Vs Inder and
another 2008 (2) ILR 807.
50.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments addressed by learned counsel for all the
parties and perused the case file very carefully.
51. I am of the view that before deciding the issues in hand,
it is proper to have a brief resume on the evidence led by
all the parties of their respective claims. PW1 Raj Kumari
Amrit Kaur has filed her affidavit in examination in chief
in which she recounted the entire assertions mentioned
in the plaint. She also testified that her father always
loved and cared for his daughters, wife and mother and
could never think of depriving them of their inheritance
of the property created by their forefathers and the

75
alleged Will has not been executed by him in case his

signatures exist on any such document, the same is result
of undue influence and fraud played on him during the
period of depression in the period following the death of
his only son Tikka Harmohinder Singh on 13-10-1981.
She also testified that defendant no.2 died on 26-7-2001
and incidentally her suit was also dismissed in default of
appearance on the same day i.e. 26-7-2001. In cross
examination, she stated that he (Raja Harinder Singh)
was not possessing any property which could be said to
be self acquired property of Raja Harinder Singh Brar
Bans Bahadur. The movable property consisted of huge
bank balance in India and abroad and it also consisted of
sticks lying deposited in banks, but she could not tell
some of the banks in which the deposits were there left by
Raja Harinder Singh. Raj Kumari Mahipeender Kaur filed
a civil suit claiming right in the property left behind by
Raja Harinder Singh which was pending in the Court at
Chandigarh which was dismissed in default on 26-72001. She was not allowed to be impleaded as party in
her place and that suit was not restored. When her sister
was alive, she was claiming 1/3rd share in the property
and as per the rule of Primogeniture, she is claiming full
property and as per law promulgated by her father. She
was suggested that according to rule of Primogeniture,

76
only the male descendants are entitled to inherit the

property and females are debarred from inheriting the
property left behind by Raja Harinder Singh. She was
suggested that she was not entitled to any share in the
property or the property left behind by Raja Harinder
Singh. She admitted that at the time of writing down the
letters Ex P2 to Ex P8 she was not present alongwith
documents Ex P9 to Ex P29 nor the same were typed in
her presence and signed by her father in her presence,
but those were received by her. She also admitted that
letters Ex.P35 to Ex P39 were also not written in her
presence and neither the greeting cards Ex P40 to Ex
P43 were ever written in her presence.
She further
stated in her cross examination that Patiala and East

Punjab State Union was formed on 20-8-1948. She
admitted that every ruler of the State was required to file
a list of properties which he wanted to retain as personal
property. Letter dated 18-9-1948 bears signatures of her
father and copy of same was marked as Mark PX/1. She
was questioned with regard to possessing of letters and
she answered that her husband was posted at different
places and letters were lost in shifting, but after 1976 her
husband was posted normally in Chandigarh and they
stayed in Chandigarh, as such, these letters remained
intact. She had been receiving letters from her father

77
even after these letters, but she did not preserve those
letters. She had been receiving letters from him upto
1989 till he died.
She admitted that property of her
brother was to be inherited by rule of Primogeniture.

After death of her brother, bank kept on writing to her
father as what was to be done with this money. Her father
did not reply. Then the bank approached the Hon'ble
High Court in England and the Court ruled in her favour.
She did not remember the exact getting amount. She had
read the alleged Will of Raja Harinder Singh mark PX,
volunteered it was not the Will of Raja Harinder Singh.
She did not know whether Raja Harinder Singh executed
any other Will, volunteered her father was not of such a
stature who would executed such a foolish Will. She
admitted that through this Will Raja Harinder Singh
created a Trust under the name and style of Maharwal
Khewaji Trust. She does not know whether Maharwal
Khewaji was ancestor of Brar Clan, but she came to know
about Maharwal Khewaji from this Will. Her father was
educated in Atkinson College, Lahore and he did senior
Cambridge from that College. He was well read person
and used to read books on politics and defence. She
admitted that according to Will, Badhu Rani Deepinder
Kaur, defendant no.1 and Raj Kumari Mahipeender Kaur
were
made
Chairperson
and
Vice
Chairperson

78
respectively
of
the
Trust,
volunteered
that
Vice
Chairperson Maheepinder Kaur filed a suit challenging

the Will. She filed this suit of her own and not in her
presence nor at her asking. She admitted that Raj Kumari
Maheepinder Kaur remained Trustee during her life time.
She further stated that at the time of last rites of her
father, Shri Karnail Singh Doad was present and
volunteered that an announcement was got made from
him regarding the Will in question. After conclusion of
last rites at Faridkot, she came to Raj Mahal where she
was already staying. She could not say whether after the
death of Raja Harinder Singh, Trust came into possession
of the properties such as Raj Mahal, Faridkot, Qila
Mubarak,
Faridkot,
Stables
Faridkot,
Mashobra
properties and Faridkot house New Delhi etc. as she is

not greedy person, so she did not go after the properties
to enquire as to in whose possession these properties
were just after the death of her father. She was not in
possession of these properties after the death of her
father. She also admitted that most of the part of the
Faridkot House New Delhi remained in possession of
Government agencies of Government of India. She has no
knowledge whether after the death of her father, the
Trust asked the Government agencies to pay rent to the
Trust. She was suggested that she never visited her father

79
and mother after her marriage. As far as she recollect,

Tikka Harmohinder Singh died due to lever problem. She
did not attend his cremation, but she attended the Bhog
ceremony. She visited so many times Faridkot after the
death of her mother and her father used to write her to
come on the birthdays. Her father was writing letters to
visit Faridkot. There were so many defects in the Will in
question. The Will under question is full of defects, such
as her father could not execute such a Will, her father was
surrounded by so many persons other than the family
and they talked to him about the contractual marriage
and if daughter is born from that contractual marriage,
she would get very little amount and her unmarried sister
was to get only 50 thousands for her marriage, her
mother was to continue to get Rs.3000/- per month
which was not sufficient for her subsistence. She
admitted that her father did not attend her marriage. Her
husband
S.
Harpal
Singh
joined
as
Assistant
Superintendent of Police in Faridkot State during the

reign of her father. She does not know whether there was
any litigation regarding the income tax / wealth tax of
estate of Raja Harinder Singh and whether the Trust was
pursuing the litigation. She was not sure whether
document Ex D20 contained the signatures of her father.
She was suggested that Will under question was executed

80
by her father.
52.Then
plaintiff
of
the
consolidated
case
Kanwar
Bharatinder Singh stepped into witness box as PW4 and

he also filed his affidavit in chief examination in which he
recounted the entire assertions mentioned in his plaint.
In cross examination, he stated that he has seen Raja
Harinder Singh signing several times, who was his Taya
Ji i.e. his father's elder brother. He had seen certified
copy of Will under question. It contained the signatures
of Raja Harinder Singh. Certified copy of Will under
question was marked as Mark DX/1. Again said that he
could not say whether the said Will under challenge
contained the signatures of Raja Harinder Singh or not.
He was not present when the Will under challenge was
executed by Raja Harinder Singh. He has correctly
mentioned in his affidavit that there is covenant entered
into by the rulers of Faridkot State and Indian
Government which provides and protects the State which
descend to a single heir by operation and applicability of
doctrine
of
Primogeniture,
therefore,
the
Hindu
Succession Act was inapplicable. He did not know

whether Raja Harinder Singh used to file income
tax/wealth tax returns after the covenant showing the
properties as his individual properties. He does not know
whether in the litigation which took place during the

81
lifetime of Raja Harinder Singh regarding surplus land,

acquisition etc., he showed the properties as his
individual properties. He did not know whether after the
death of Raja Harinder Singh, the Trust was litigating all
sorts of cases regarding his properties. He was suggested
that Will under question was executed by Raja Harinder
Singh out of his free will and volition.
53.Dr. Jassy Anand, Fingerprints and Documents Expert
was examined by the plaintiff in rebuttal evidence as
PW5. She stated that she has examined the disputed
writings Q12, Q13 and compared them with thirteen
standard writings marked as SA on Ex P7, SB on Ex
P27, SC on Ex P29, SD on Ex P8, SE on Ex P57, SF on
Ex P58, SG on Ex P59,SH on Ex P60, SI on Ex P61, SJ
on Ex P62, SK on Ex P63, SL on Ex P64 and SM on Ex
P66.
She
has
also
examined
B1
and
B6,
the
endorsements written in Gurmukhi on the disputed Wills

Ex DW2/B and in Ex PX2, B2, B3, B7, B8, B11 and B12
the writings in Gurmukhi. After the examination of
documents in question, she was of the opinion that
reverse of page 1 of the Gurmukhi Will was blank apart
from the two signatures readable as 'Harinder Singh' at
point Q26 and Q27 and one each of witnesses readable as
'Brijinder Pal Singh Brar' at point C9 and 'Jagir Singh' at
point C10. It has been observed that the endorsement

82
paragraphs in both the disputed English Wills have been

written above the preexisting signature readable as
'Harinder Singh'as on the blank page of the Gurmukhi
Will. Other legal processes regarding the registration of
two disputed English Wills have been completed in
similar blank spaces as on the blank page of the
Gurmukhi Will. As the blank space was present above
disputed signatures Q26 on the Gurmukhi Will, the
forger had forged the endorsement part above preexisting
disputed signatures Q2 and Q15 on two disputed English
Wills Ex DW2/B and Ex PX2. Similarly, at the blank
space present above the preexisting disputed signatures
Q27 on the Gurmukhi Will, the forger has adopted the
similar methods to complete the registration process in
the blank space above the preexisting disputed signatures
Q3 and Q16 on two disputed English Wills Ex DW2/B
and Ex PX2. This proves the fact that signatures were
present on the blank papers and the endorsement at
point B1 and B6 on the disputed English Wills was
written thereafter.
It has been concluded that
endorsement part at point B1 and B6 and the words

written in Gurmukhi in two disputed Wills Ex DW2/B
and Ex PX2 was written by one and the same person
with the same pen and ink as the names written in
Gurmukhi at points B2, B3, B7, B8, B11 and B12 above

83
the preexisting signatures readable as 'Harinder Singh'

on all the three disputed Wills and the names of the
witnesses at points B4, B5, B9, B10, B13 and B14 existing
on the blank page of the Gurmukhi Will and the
endorsement pages of English Wills in Ex DW2/B and in
Ex PX2 were in the same handwriting with the same pen
and ink. She was extensively cross examined in which she
stated that Q1 to Q11, Q14 to Q24, Q25 to Q35 are on one
and the same document i.e. two disputed English Wills
and one disputed Gurmukhi Will. She admitted that the
three disputed Wills are of the same date i.e. 1-6-1982.
She was suggested that Q1 to Q11 and Q14 to Q25 were
with the same writing instrument and ink. She admitted
that disputed signatures were with fountain pen. She was
suggested that she has made wrong statement to justify
her report and fulfill the cause of party engaging her as
her witness. She was suggested that she had stated wrong
answers and the disputed signatures are genuine
signatures and not copied forgery. She was suggested that
there were present similarities in the disputed and
standard signatures and that no similarities were present
due to the same authorship of the disputed and standard
signatures.
54.Thereafter, Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh Brar, Advocate was
examined by the contesting defendants as DW1 who is

84
one of the attesting witness of the alleged Will. He filed

his affidavit in examination in chief. He stated that his
grand father was Zaildar in Faridkot State and was
assessor in Sessions trial. He had social relations with
late Col. Harinder Singh and have been attending various
social functions in Raj Mahal and Qila Mubarik Faridkot
during his lifetime. He had seen the original registered
Will dated 1-6-1982 produced by Sh. Lalit Mohan
Gupta,Chief
Executive,
Maharwal
Khewaji
Trust,
Faridkot, document no.41 dated 1-6-1982 executed by

late Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur, former Ruler
of Faridkot State. This Will Ex DW2/B contained his
signatures as one of the attesting witness. He was called
by late Raja Harinder Singh Brar through Nafar in Raja
Mahala in the afternoon on 1-6-1982. He reached Raj
Mahal at about 5:00 p.m. on 1-6-1982. S. Jagir Singh
Lambardar of revenue estate Bir Bholluwala second
attesting witness was also present there. Sir Harinder
Singh Brar told both of them that he himself has drafted
and got typed the Will and he himself was the author of
the Will and it was his holograph Will. Sir Harinder Singh
Brar read over the contents of the Will Ex DW2/B in his
presence and that of S. Jagir Singh Lamberdar.
Thereafter, Sub Registrar, Faridkot Sh.Sadhu Ram
arrived in Raj Mahal to get the Will attested and

85
registered, on commission. He was accompanied by his

staff. Sir Harinder Singh Brar presented the Will before
the Sub Registrar in their presence for registration. Sub
Registrar,
upon
presentation
of
the
Will,
made
endorsement of presentation. He further stated that Sir

Harinder Singh Brar was physically and mentally quite fit
and was capable of making rational judgment and he
voluntarily executed the Will in question.
No undue
influence was exercised upon Sir Harinder Singh Brar for

execution of said Will.
He was cross examined
extensively in which he stated that he did not know as to

whether Raja Harinder Singh studied in Atkinson
College, Lahore, but he was well conversant with English
language. He was having only formal relations with Raja
Harinder Singh. He was never professionally engaged by
the Maharaja in any matter. He does not know whether
the social circle of the said Maharaja was of Governors,
Senior Military Officers including Ministers and Prime
Ministers. He was called by the Maharaja to become
witness and he went to Raj Mahal. They were sitting in
the drawing room. None else, other than the three of
them was in the drawing room. Then the Maharaja
showed him the Will stating that he had already got
drafted and typed the Will himself. There were two copies
of the Will. He did not know as to whether it was

86
computer typing or from ordinary typewriter. Both the

copies were taken as print out. Maharaja signed both the
copies of the Will and then he and Jagir Singh put their
signatures on the said two copies of Will. He signed the
copies of the Will without going through the contents of
the Will. As far as he remember, there were no cutting on
the Will at that time on both the copies. Will contained
nine pages. He did not remember whether all the pages of
the Will were punched together or these were loose sheets
of both the copies. He signed the Will before the Sub
Registrar. Sub Registrar alongwith his staff reached at
Raj Mahal after 10-15 minutes of his arrival in the Raj
Mahal. The staff may be two/three in number, but he did
not know exactly the number of staff accompanying the
Sub Registrar. He did not remember as to whether they
brought any register alongwith them. Maharaja presented
the Will to the Sub Registrar for registration and signed
the same and after that the Sub Registrar read over the
Will. Maharaja signed every page of the Will in his
presence before arrival of the Sub Registrar. Before the
Sub Registrar, Maharaja signed the Will at two places.
He did not know whether the Sub Registrar made any
entry in the Register regarding registration of the Will at
that time. He did not remember whether Will in question
was on legal size paper or on the paper of the same size or

87
on the petition paper.
He admitted that on Will Ex
DW2/B at page 8, there was typed cutting and above

that there was 12:00 p.m. and this was not signed or
initialed by the testator or any witnesses or by the Sub
Registrar. Thereafter, he was suggested that Will was not
executed by Raja Harinder Singh.
55.Then Sh. Navdeep Gupta was examined by the
defendants as DW2 who stated, by filing his affidavit, that
he examined and compared the disputed and specimen/
standard signatures with the help of photographs. He and
late Dewan K.S. Puri were of the opinion that the
disputed signatures marked as Q1 to Q11 were written by
the same person who wrote the specimen / standard
signatures marked as S1 to S17. In his cross examination,
he admitted that in photostat copy Ex. PX6 on the first
page the date of Will was typed as 12-8-1982 and
volunteered that in the affidavit given by him he had
recorded the the date in the report has been inadvertently
typed as 12-8-1982 which was 1-6-1982. He admitted that
there was no Will dated 12-8-1982 in the present case. He
also admitted that report was jointly prepared by him and
late Dewan K.S. Puri. He stated that correction was made
after the death of Dewan K.S.Puri. He further stated that
he did not remember the name of person who told him to
examine the signatures only and not the contents of the

88
Will. He could not tell who wrote 1st June and 1982 and
the signatures on the Will and also not compared them
with each other. He also admitted that on the last page of
Will, signatures of both the witnesses were with blue
colour ink and on the reverse of page no.1 i.e. on the
registration side, signatures of these witnesses are with
black colour ink. He has not examined the condition of
the papers on which the Will has been typed. There was
no order of any Court for examining the Will and for
taking photographs of the Will.
56.Then Maharani Deepinder Kaur Sahiba appeared into
witness box as DW3 and she also filed her affidavit in
examination in chief in which she recounted the entire
assertions mentioned in her written statement. In cross
examination, she admitted that her father was highly
educated and he studied in Atkinson College, Lahore. She
admitted that her father was excellent student and he got
Godley medal for best essay writing in English Language
in the said college in 1932. She further stated that she did
not write any letter to the bank authorities in U.K. not to
disburse the money of the said Trust in U.K. to them after
the death of her father and volunteered that the Trust
office, Faridkot wrote letter to the Bank authorities in
U.K. that the personal money of her father Raja Harinder
Singh be not given to any body till the issue of succession

89
is decided. She did not remember if she was getting more

money from the Trust earlier of her share. After the death
of her brother, his share was in the bank and it was given
to Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur, her elder sister on the basis
she being the eldest and by application of law of
Primogeniture. She admitted that Raja Sahib Faridkot,
her father had created Faridkot Housing Family Trust
which was orally made in 1968 a document and
registered on 12-7-1989. She admitted that she was sole
trustee after the demise of Raja Sahib. She was suggested
that these properties were mentioned in the Will in
question as it is not the Will executed by Raja Sahib
otherwise he could not have mentioned these properties
which were already handed over to the Trust and for
family housing, volunteered that the Will was executed in
1982 and later on he wanted to put these properties into
Housing Trust. She further stated that she did not know
from which sources Mr. U.S. Dhaliwal came to know
about the execution of Will in question by late Raja
Harinder Singh. Sh. U.S.Dhaliwal disclosed her regarding
the fact that he has taken out the Will in question from
the safe. She did not know whether the keys of the safe
always remained with Mr. U.S. Dhaliwal. None of three
sisters were present when the safe was opened by Mr.
U.S.Dhaliwal for taking out the Will in question. Will in

90
question was taken out from the envelope which was

simply affixed not sealed one by opening the same
envelope by Sh. U.S.Dhaliwal for showing/reading out
the contents of the Will to all the Trustees and the
Executors.
She was suggested by both the plaintiffs
according to their pleadings and in the manner that the

Will in question was never executed by her father.
57.DW4 Sh. Jagrup Singh has stated that he was working as
Head Mechanic and driver of the cars of late Raja
Harinder Singh. He had seen the imported antique cars
and different customers had been visiting from time to
time for purchase of these cars and offering fabulous
price, therefore, he was fully conversant with the market
value of these antique cars as in the year 1992-93. Price
has been estimated from the quotations given by different
customers who had come to purchase those cars. In cross
examination, he stated that he could not produce his
appointment letter showing him as Head Mechanic of
Raja Harinder Singh. He could not tell the year when he
was appointed Head Mechanic. He could not tell the
name of any customer who who had estimated the cost of
any of the vehicle. He did not see the documents of the
cars/ vehicles in order to ascertain the year of
manufacturing of the vehicle. He got recorded the rates of
the cars in his affidavit i.e. examination in chief from

91
hearing from some others
and rest is from his own
knowledge.
58.DW5 Sh. Madan Mohan Devgan has also filed his
affidavit in examination in chief in which he stated that
he was in possession and custody of Toshakhana Register
of the erstwhile Faridkot State containing records of
ornaments of royal family. This Register is in Urdu script.
It contains index of entries in it with the word Alf upto
Kaf. Market value of the jewellery as per list of jewellery
Sambhal was Rs.8,32,443-2 anna -6 paise and its value
according to rough estimate would be Rs.3000/- crore. In
cross examination, he stated that entry dated 14-10-1936
was not made in the said register in his presence. There
was no page marked where entry was made. These entries
were not made in his presence.
59.Thus, after scanning the entire evidence of the
parties, the pivotal questions in these issues are
whether deceased Raja Harinder Singh executed
a Will Ex DW2/B in favour of defendants?
Whether deceased Raja Harinder Singh executed
a valid Will in favour of defendants?
60.Before embarking upon further discussion, let us have a
look on the relevant law relating to the execution of Will.
The basic law relating to the execution of the Will has
been beautifully dealt at length by our Hon'ble Supreme

92
Court
in
case
II.Venkatachala
Tvengar
Vs
B.N.Thiamajamma and others AIR 1959 SC 443 in

which it is held that:
Unlike other documents the Will speaks from the
death of the Testator and so when it is propounded
or produced before a Court the Testator who has
already departed the world can not say whether it is
his Will or not and this aspect naturally introduces
an element of solemnity in the decision of the
question as to whether the document propounded
is proved to be the last Will and testament of the
departed Testator.
Even so in dealing with the
proof of the Wills the Court will start on the same

enquiry as in the case of proof of documents. The
propounder would be called upon to show by
satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by
the Testator, that the Testator at the relevant time
was in a sound and disposing state of mind that he
understood the nature and effect of the dispositions
and put his signature to the document of his own
free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in
support of the Will is disinterested satisfactorily
and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing
state of Testator's mind
and his signatures as
required law Courts would be justified in making a

93
finding in favour of the propounder. In other words

the onus on the propounder can be taken to be
discharged on proof of the essential facts just
indicated.
There may however, be cases in which the
execution of the Will may be surrounded by
suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of
the Testator may be very shaky and doubtful and
evidence in support of the propounder's case that
the signature in question is the signature of the
Testator may not remove the doubt created by the
appearance of the signature, condition of the
Testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and
debilitated and evidence adduced may not succeed
in removing the legitimate doubt as to mental
capacity of the Testator, the disposition made in the
Will may appear to be unnatural improbable or
unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or the
will
may
otherwise
indicate
that
the
said
disposition may not be the result of the Testator's

free will and mind. In such cases, the court would
naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions
should be completely removed before the document
is accepted as the last Will of the Testator. The
presence
of
such
suspicious
circumstances

94
naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy

and unless it is satisfactory discharged. Courts
would be reluctant to treat the document as last
Will of the Testator. It is true that if a caveat is filed
alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or
coercion in respect of the execution of the Will
propounded such pleas may have to be proved by
the caveators
but
even
without
such
pleas
circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the

Testator was acting of his own free will in executing
the Will and in such circumstance it would be part
of initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts
in the matter.
This pronouncement has been followed in
number of subsequent decision of Apex Court
including Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Amrit Kaur
AIR 1977 S.C.77 in which it is held that:
Cases in which the execution of the Will is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a
different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind
and unfair and unjust disposition of property, the
propounder himself taking a leading part in the
making of the Will under which he received a
substantial benefit and such other circumstances
raised suspicion about the execution of the Will.

95
The suspicion cannot be removed by the mere

assertion of the propounder that the Will bears the
signature of the Testator or that the Testator was in
a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at
the time when the Will was made or that those like
the wife and children of the Testator who would
normally receive their due share in his estate were
disinherited because the Testator might have his
own reasons for excluding them. The presence of
suspicious circumstances attendant
upon
the
execution of the Will excite the suspicion of the

Court, the propounder must remove all legitimate
suspicions before the document can be accepted as
the last Will of the Testator.
61.Moreover, reliance is also placed by me on the law laid
down by our Hon'ble High Court in Bachan Singh Vs
Bakshish Singh 2000(3) AIJ 41 in which it is held
that, Will proof-The propounder of the Will has
to clear all the suspicious circumstances and
satisfy the conscious of the Court that there was
reason for the Testator to prefer the propounder
and exclude others.
The Court while deciding
whether the instrument produced before the

Court is the last Will of the Testator, it is deciding
the solemn question and must be fully satisfied

96
that if it was executed by the Testator.

62. It is the case of the plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur that
her father Raja Harinder Singh, during his lifetime, never
executed the Will dated 1-6-1982. She is entitled to
inherit him after his death being the legal heir by way of
natural succession as well as by rule of Primogeniture.
She has also made attack on the Will in question that
after the death of her brother Tikka Harmohinder Singh,
her father was under depression and he was not in sound
state of mind till his death and he breathed his last in
Batra Hospital. The Will dated 1-6-1982 is a forged,
fabricated and is result of undue influence played upon
Raja Harinder Singh. On the other hand, it is the case of
plaintiff Kanwar Manjitinder Singh that he being the only
male member of family of Raja Harinder Singh has right
to inherit him by way of rule of Primogeniture. He also
made attack on the Will under question by taking the
same stand as has been set up by the plaintiff Raj Kumari
Amrit Kaur. Whereas, the contesting defendants have
taken a stand that the Will under question is valid, legal
and is not result of undue influence as alleged by the
plaintiff. The Will is registered document and that was
executed by Raja Harinder Singh during his lifetime and
same was witnessed by witnesses Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh
and S.Jagir Singh, Lamberdar. There is nothing on record

97
to prove that the Will under question is surrounded with

mystery. All the suspicious circumstances as pointed out
by the plaintiff have been dispelled away. It is also the
stand of the defendants that the plaintiff was ignored by
the Testator since she got herself married with employee
of Raja Harinder Singh and Raja was unhappy and was
not on visiting terms with the plaintiff Amrit Kaur. Rule
of primogeniture is not applicable. Property in the hands
of Raja was his personal property and the provisions of
Hindu Succession Act governs succession to the estate.
63.It is now well settled that unlike other documents the
Will speaks after the death of testator and so when it is
propounded or produced before the Court, the testator
who has already departed the world can not say whether
it is his Will or not. It is due to this fact that the Courts
generally call for a strict proof of the Will, where there are
suspicious circumstances. Onus is on the propounder to
explain that to the satisfaction of the Court, before the
Court accept the same as genuine. Burden is lying upon
the propounder to prove that testator was in sound
disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will. A
sound state of health is different from sound state of
mind which alone is legally required to validate the Will. I
am of the considered view that it is the duty of the
propounder to dispel all the suspicious circumstances

98
which are pointed out by the adverse party and

accordingly the plaintiff was supposed to lead cogent and
convincing evidence to prove the due execution of the
Will and he was supposed to lead sufficient evidence how
the Will came to his custody.
Here I would like to discuss the position of the
Will under question.
64.First of all, it is to be seen as to whether the propounders
of the Will have proved the due execution of the Will
under question. In order to prove the Will under
question, they have examined witness Sh. Brijinder Pal
Singh Brar. But evidence of this attesting witness does
not inspire any confidence to prove the due execution of
the Will under question. This witness was extensively
cross examined and he has failed to satisfy the Court that
the Will under question was executed by Raja Harinder
Singh out of his free will and volition. It is admitted case
of the defendants that Raja Harinder Singh executed the
Will under question and he himself got the Will typed
and drafted. On careful examination of the original Will
which is on record and on perusal of certified copy of the
Will which was in the record of the registration authority
speaks volume that the format of both the Wills is
different and both the Wills are typed by different
typewriters. This Court is of the view that if Raja

99
Harinder Singh who was having ministerial staff with

him during his lifetime, was interested to execute his
Will, he could take the services of his employees in
getting the Will typed. But the mistakes which are
appearing in the body of the writing of the Will under
question itself goes to show that it was never executed by
a person of sound state of mind. On the opening face of
Will it has been recited as Harrograph and this word is
never familiar to the terminology of the writing of the
Will. In fact, Holograph Will is a Will which is wholly
written in the handwriting of the Testator. But in the
instant case it is not holograph Will of the Testator,
therefore, using of the word as harrograph instead of
holograph itself creates a doubt in due execution of the
Will under question. More so, it is not the hand written of
the deceased. It is evident on perusal of record that the
defendants have produced one original copy of the
alleged Will and another counter copy of the alleged Will
from the registration office. However, it is abundantly
clear that both the Wills coming from the office of
Registration Office and produced by the propounders are
typed on different typewriters. Instead of taking the
carbon copy of the Will, getting the Will typed from
another typewriter has not been explained either by the
attesting witness or by the propounders. Witness

100
Maharani Deepinder Kaur has admitted that her father

was highly educated and studied in Atkinson College,
Lahore. We should not loose the site of the fact that the
Will under question is allegedly executed by a Raja of an
empire and not by an ordinary person. I am of the view
that circumstances is suspicious when it is not normal or
is not expected in normal situation or is not expected by a
normal person. Case of the propounders that the Wil was
already ready with Raja Harinder Singh and he himself
drafted and typed the Will is creating doubt on the Will.
From appearance of the Will under question there is
somewhat suspicion. Papers of the Will are very thin.
Late Raja was sufficiently educated person. AS per
statement of attesting witness Brijinder Pal Singh Brar he
was summoned by Raja Harinder Singh on the day of
execution of the Will. Relationship of Raja with attesting
witness was not to be said of very cordial and were of
formal nature. In Apoliene D.Soja Vs. John D Soja
2007 (3) RCR (C)260 SC wherein it is held that where
the attesting witness was completely stranger to testatrix.
Then why was she called and who called her to attest the
Will is shrouded in mystery.
65.Further, in the instant case, there is no evidence that
there was any previous talk took place between the
attesting witness and Raja Harinder Singh regarding

101
execution of Will. Getting the Will attested by Raja

Harinder Singh from this witness without any previous
talk founds to be very unbelievable. Raja could got the
Will attested from his friend or from any official of his
office empire, the services of whose could be easily
available to the deceased.
It is not supposed that he
would have suddenly called a person to attest his Will in

whom there is no evidence that he was reposing any
confidence. Further, it has been admitted by the attesting
witness of the Will Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh that he was
practicing lawyer with Sh. Ranjit Singh Wahniwal Adv.
Therefore it is not supposed that this information was
never shared by the attesting witness with Ranjit Singh
Beniwal and this Will was never kept secret by this
witness if it was at all executed by Raja Harinder Singh.
Further, mere registration of the Will by itself will not be
sufficient to dispel all the suspicions without evidence of
proper execution of the Will. There is no doubt that if a
Will has been registered, that is a circumstance which
may having regard to the circumstances prove its
genuineness. But the mere fact that a Will is a registered
Will is not by itself sufficient to dispel all suspicion
regarding it where suspicion exist without submitting the
evidence of registration to a close examination. Where
the execution of Will is surrounded by suspicious

102
circumstances, the suspicion can not be removed by mere

assertion of propounder that the Will is a Registered
document or that it bears the signatures of Testator. In
the instant case, although the Will is a Registered
document but the propounder of the Will has failed to
prove that it was executed by the deceased in sound and
disposing state of mind and memory at the time of
alleged Will.
66.Raja of an empire could never commit a mistake in
execution of the Will by reciting such recitals which are
not known in the terminology of writing of Will. My
attention was drawn to the Will dated 22-5-1952 which
was earlier executed by Raja Harinder Singh and on
perusal of this Will it leaves no manner of doubt that it
was executed by Raja Harinder Singh and there is neither
any mistake of the recitals nor there is any typographic
error. Further, any overdoing on the part of propounders
of the Will under question is also creating doubt in the
execution of the Will. Witness Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh
Brar in his cross examination has stated that there were
two copies of Will. But on having cursory perusal of
record, it reveals that there is another copy of Will in
Gurmukhi script. I am fail to understand that if this
witness is stating the fact that only two copies of Wills
were attested by him, then how the Will in Gurmukhi

103
script came into light. This witness has also failed to

state that as to whether the Will was computer typed or
from ordinary typewriter. He stated that both the copies

were taken out as print out. But it is not so on perusal of
the Wills by naked eyes. He also failed to state as to
whether the Will under question was on legal size paper
or on paper of same size or on petition paper. There is
also no evidence on record as to who typed the Will.
Further, I am of the view that if the Will appears, on the
face of it, to have been executed and attested not in
accordance with provisions of law, then the Will has to
be discarded. Attesting witness Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh
Brar has testified that he was called by Raja Harinder
Singh through Nafar in the Raj Mahal in the after noon
of 1-6-1982. He reached Raj Mahal at around 5:00 p.m.
on 1-6-1982. S. Jagir Singh Lamberdar another attesting
witness was already present there. Thereafter, Sub
Registrar Sh. Sadhu Ram Bansal arrived there to get the
Will registered on commission. He was accompanied by
his staff. Sir Harinder Singh Brar himself presented the
Will before the Sub Registrar in their presence for
registration. Further, by not proving the fact on record
as to who typed the Will and mentioning of date by hand
in the body of the Will is a sufficient circumstance to

104
disbelieve the Will. The evidence as to registration on

close examination reveals that registration was made in
such a perfunctory manner that the officer registering
the Will did not read over it to the Testator or satisfy
himself in this regard in some other way as for example
he should see the Testator read the Will that it was a
Will execution of which he was admitting, the fact that
Will was registered would not be of much value.
Registration may take place without executant really
knowing what he was registering. At this juncture,
reliance is place by me on the law laid down in case Ram
Punam
and
another
Vs
Kumar
Khasinder
Narayandev AIR 1962 SC 567 that it is not unknown

that registration may take place without the executant
really knowing what he was registering. Law reports are
full of cases in which registered Wills have not been acted
upon. As such, in the instant case, even the fact that the
Will under dispute is a registered Will, is of no
significance. Suffice it to say that proof of Will can not be
a matter of inference. No evidence has been produced by
the defendants to prove that the Will was read over by the
Sub Registrar at the time of registration of Will, as no
official of the office of Sub Registrar has been examined
by the defendants to prove that at that time the Sub
Registrar was accompanied with particular staff and Will

105
was read over to alleged Testator of the Will. A man may

tell lie but the circumstances do not. Registration of the
Will at the home of the Testator and in the absence of any
evidence that any official of Testator went in the office of
Sub Registrar to make a request to register Will at the
residence of Testator goes long way to suggest that Will is
surrounded with suspicious circumstances.
67. As per section 31 of Registration Act, 1908, in extra
ordinary cases, registration can be validly done at place
other than the office of Registration Authority or at
residence of a person desiring to get registration of a
document. The word ' may' of special cause being shown
in proviso to section 31 imply that Registration Officer is
the Judge of the sufficiency of special cause and if he is
satisfied, then document can be registered at the
residence of a person desiring to present a document for
registration. But in the instant case, no evidence has been
produced by the defendants to show that what were the
circumstances which compelled the Registering Officer to
register the document at the residence of Raja Harinder
Singh. No evidence has been produced that Testator of
alleged Will was unwell, rather the registration of
document at the residence of Testator of alleged Will
without any sufficient cause creates doubt that document
was registered in clandestine manner to defeat the

106
legitimate right of plaintiff Amrit Kaur.

68.The plaintiffs have also made attack on the Will that it is
result of undue influence. A transaction may be vitiated
on account of undue influence where the relation
between the parties are such that one of them is in a
position to dominate the Will of other and he used his
position
to
obtain
unfair
advantage
over
other.
Testamentary capacity has seriously been disputed by the

plaintiffs, though burden of proving fraud and undue
influence is on the plaintiff, but the legatee has to satisfy
the conscious of the Court that the act of execution of the
Will was not affected by any of these infirmities.
Genuineness of the Will under question is not beyond
doubt and burden shifts on the legatee to show that Will
was executed without any undue influence. The Will
under question was propounded by the alleged Testator
in favour of his two daughters Maharani Deepinder Kaur
and Mahipeender Kaur and they were appointed by him
as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson respectively. It is
admitted case on record that the alleged Will was
witnessed by DW1 Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh Brar. Sh.
Brijinder Pal Singh Brar has fairly admitted in his cross
examination that he started his practice jointly with Sh.
Ranjit Singh Advocate. Sh. Ranjit Singh Advocate is one
of the party in the present suit. Meaning thereby, Sh.

107
Ranjit Singh was interested in getting the Will executed

in this manner and therefore, the attestation made by this
witness who was having proximity with Sh. Ranjit Singh
Wahniwal Advocate was in a position to exercise undue
influence upon Raja Harinder Singh in getting the Will
under question executed. Exclusion of plaintiff Raj
Kumari Amrit Kaur from inheriting the estate of her
father and execution of the alleged Will in favour of two
daughters and executors itself speaks volumes that the
Will is not the result of free will and volition of the
alleged Testator and is result of undue influence. It was
the duty of the propounders of the Will to prove that
disposition under the Will was not improbable or unfair
or unnatural. In this case, by virtue of alleged Will, the
Testator is said to have excluded his own daughter Raj
Kumari Amrit Kaur from inheriting him and he preferred
his other two daughters and strangers. It lay upon the
propounders of the Will to prove that Testator was so
favourable
disposing
towards
his
daughters
and
executors that he made them cynosure of his eyes to the

exclusion of his daughter Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur. No
evidence is on record to show that the plaintiff who has
been excluded had any sore or sour relations with her
father. There is ample evidence on record to show that
Raja Harinder Singh was in constant correspondence

108
with his daughter before his death. Mere fact that Raj
Kumari Amrit Kaur performed marriage with an
employee of Testator can not be considered as a ground
by virtue of which her father became unhappy. Even if, he
happened to be unhappy on the performance of marriage,
he could make recital in this Will that due to this reason
he has disinherited her from him. In this case, essential
particulars of proof of the Will are lacking. Furthermore,
recitals of the Will which also creates doubt in the
execution of the Will is reproduced as under:If I am blessed with a male child be getting from
my lions out of existing wedlock or from future
matrimonial alliance like a surrogate marriage or
contractual companionship duly notified under a
registered deed and the paternity of the child so
born is duly certified by me in writing, shall alone
inherit
all
my
properties
assets
of
every
description referred to above and all other heirs

shall stand excluded from inheritance in that even.
Should more than one male child be born then the
succession to my Estate will be according to the
rule of primogeniture.
These recitals reflects the guilty conscience of the person
who got the Will prepared. A person who was blessed
with three daughters and one son who predeceased him,

109
would never think to perform a contractual marriage in

the evening of his life.
69.Furthermore, there is no evidence led by the defendants
that the plaintiff was not rendering services to her father.
In fact, on the perusal of documentary evidence on record
coupled with oral evidence, it is amply established that
she had very good relations with her father and she has
been deprived of her rights without good reason. If the
Will as alleged by the defendants was executed by the
Testator during his lifetime, then why the defendants kept
the Will in dark for long time. Existence of the Will was
never disclosed by the defendants earlier. There is no
evidence that how the propounders of the Will came to
know about the execution of the Will by the Testator
during his lifetime. DW3 Maharani Deepinder Kaur has
made an attempt in her cross examination for proving
coming into custody of the Will by testifying the fact that
Sh. U.S. Dhaliwal disclosed her regarding the fact that he
has taken out the Will in question from the safe. Further,
she showed her ignorance in her cross examination as to
whether the keys of the safe were always remained with

Sh. U.S. Dhaliwal. She also stated that none of the
three sisters were present when safe was opened by
Sh.
U. S. Dhaliwal
for taking out the Will under
question. She has no where stated the date, month and

110
year of opening of safe by
Sh. U.S.Dhaliwal. It is
important to keep in mind that as per the recitals of the

alleged Will, Sh. U.S. Dhaliwal was appointed as Chief
Executive of Board of Trustees. Meaning thereby, Sh.
U.S.Dhaliwal is also one of the beneficiary of the Will.
Witness
Maharani
Deepinder
Kaur,
in
her chief
examination, has stated that last rites of Sir Harinder

Singh were performed in Qila Mubarik, Faridkot on 2610-1989 where all the respectable persons of the area
including Giani Zail Singh, had assembled to pay homage
to the departed soul and on that day S. Karnail Singh
Doad, Advocate read over the Will of Colonel Sir
Harinder Singh Brar dated 1-6-1982. As per the
statement of this witness, the factum of Will was
disclosed immediately on the death of Raja Harinder
Singh on 26-10-1989. Then coming to the custody of the
Will after the death of Raja Harinder Singh from his safe
by Sh. U.S. Dhaliwal is incorrect and beyond imagination.
If the Will was disclosed by Sh. U.S. Dhaliwal
immediately on the death of Raja Harinder Singh on 2610-1989, then putting forth a story that Will came into
the custody of Sh. U.S.Dhaliwal after opening of the safe
of Raja Harinder Singh creates doubt in due execution of
the Will under question. In case Vidya Sagar Soni Vs
State 2007 (3) RLR (C)872, it was held that where

111
has stated that he was never called or summoned

to be witness to Will and had gone to the house of
Testator per chance and signed the Will. The
Testator did not summon anybody to witness the
Will on the date it was shown to be executed, but
got it signed latter. None of the attesting witness
could disclose as to from where the Will was got
typed, genuineness of attesting witness held
doubtful. Moreover, how the Will reached to the
locker is not explained. Creation of Will held to
be highly doubtful. Further, using of different pen ink
for putting of signatures by the alleged Testator and
attesting witnesses, is a matter of serious suspicion.
Signatures of the alleged Testator are appearing on the
Will with a light blue ink fountain pen, whereas, the
signatures of both the attesting witnesses are appearing
on the Will with dark blue ink pen. Further, putting of the
signatures by both the attesting witnesses at the time of
registration with black ink pen are also creating doubt in
the authenticity of the Will. In case Ramji Dass Vs
Gurudwara Singh Sabha 2001 CCC 175, it was held
that where the Will bearing attestation of number
of persons in different inks, it suggest that the
attestation of the Will did not take place at one
and the same time. In case Ratha Singh Vs Jagan

112
Nath 1994 (2) CCC 282 it was held that where ink in
body and the date appearing under the writer's
signature are different, the date put at the end of
contents is also in different ink and blank space
was kept for filling the date, both the dates
appearing to be interpolation regarding the
colour which the transaction was given the family
settlement. Nothing at all in the document which
inspires confidence. Object, writing, signatures,
date give it cumulatively a dubious character. In
normal situation, the witnesses are supposed to use the
same ink pen which are being used by them to attest the
Will. It is the case of the defendants that the Will was
registered at the residence of Testator but using of
different ink pen by the attesting witnesses is also causing
doubt in the execution of the Will. Now in nutshell, there
are following circumstances which creates suspicion in
the execution of the Will by the Testator:(i)
Witness of Will by DW1 Sh. Brijinder Pal Singh

Brar as an attesting witness of the alleged Will who
is relative of one of the executor.
(ii)
Using of different ink pen by the attesting witness

at the time of attestation of the Will and at the time
of registration of the Will.
(iii) Wrong recital of the Will as using of word

113
Harrograph Will or Holograph Will. In fact, it is not

a Holograph Will of alleged Testator.
(iv)
Production of Will by delay after the death of Raja

Harinder Singh.
(v)
Coming of the Will in custody of propounders after

the death of Testator is highly improbable and is
false one on the basis of evidence of defendants.
70.Examination of the Will by Mr. Navdeep Gupta without

the order of the Court and when no question was raised
by anybody, also creates doubt. His evidence has been
fully rebutted by witness Ms. Jassy Anand PW5. She, vide
her report Ex PW5/1, has stated that letter 'Rarra' in
Gurmukhi Will of Harinder Singh has been shortened to
accommodate the writings in Gurmukhi at point no.B7
above the signatures readable as 'Harinder Singh'. All
other 'Rarras' occurring in the said portions written in the
endorsement language are of normal size. It has been
further observed that letter 'Rarra' existing in the word
Harinder that is the first 'Rarra' existing after letter 'Aara'
has been shortened and is clearly overlapping that last
stroke of the signatures readable as 'Harinder Singh'.
This part of the testimony of expert witness has gone
unrebutted and unchallenged. Witness Sh. Navdeep
Gupta never said to have examined the Will as an Expert
and in fact the Will was examined by his senior Dewan

114
K.S. Puri. He has admitted that he and late Dewan

K.S.Puri had minutely and thoroughly examined the
disputed signatures of late Col. Sir Harinder Singh in
English in original marked as Q1 to Q11 on the respective
photographs taken from the registered Will dated 1-61982. He further stated that he identified the signatures
of late Dewan K.S. Puri on the report and the
photographic charts as he worked with him and seen him
signing and writing. Meaning thereby, it was only Dewan
K.S.Puri who had examined the Will and examined the
disputed signatures of Testator on alleged Will. This
witness has never happened to examine the Will and
signatures of the Testator of alleged Will as an expert,
therefore, his evidence inspires no confidence to be relied
upon. Further, I am fail to understand that what was the
hitch for this witness to again make the comparison of
the signatures of Testator with the standard signatures
during the trial of the case. Further, this witness stated
that only the signatures of Testator were examined and
writing of the Will was never examined. From the very
beginning, it is the case of the plaintiff that the Will under
question is result of fraud and the propounders of the
Will procured the blank papers containing the signatures
of Raja Harinder Singh and later on they manufactured
the Will. Now, it was incumbent upon the expert to

115
examine the entire body of the Will to rule out the

possibility of any fabrication. In cross examination, he
stated that he could not tell who wrote '1 st June' and
'1982' on the last page of the Will. He had not examined
the document from this angle that who has written '1st
June' and '1982'. He admitted that slow and drawn
movement may point towards the forged nature of a
signature.
He also admitted that a forged signature
would only show resemblance in the outward pictorial

formation of letters, but would differ in the individual
letter to letter characteristics. As such, without examining
the Will from all the angles by this expert, gives an
adverse inference against the propounders of the Will. If
we test the evidence on record on the touchstone of cross
examination with the aid of well settled principles
relating to execution of Will then in my view the Will does
not appears to be a genuine document and there are large
number of suspicious circumstances from which it can be
inferred that the Will in dispute is an invalid document.
71. Here I would like to discuss as to whether the
Rule of Primogeniture is applicable to the estate
of
deceased
provisions
of
Raja
Harinder
Hindu
Singh
Succession
or
the
Act
are
applicable. Rule of Primogeniture as envisaged in The

Raja of Faridkot Estate Act, 1948 provides that if holder

116
of Faridkot State for the time being has no legitimate

male descendant in the male line and if he shall have no
male descendant during surviving, the succession shall
pass to the close agnates and said agnate shall be covered
by the same rule and shall follow the same order. Term
'agnate' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, a
blood relative whose connection is through male line Or a
relative on the father's side, whether or not traced
exclusively through the male line. First of all, it was
incumbent upon the plaintiffs to establish that the
deceased was holding the properties in such a manner by
virtue of which the Rule of Primogeniture is applicable.
No documentary evidence has been produced by the
plaintiffs of both the suits to show that Raja Harinder
Singh inherited the property as reflected in Annexure A1
from his forefathers or the same was inherited by him as
a ruler. PW1 Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur has stated in her
statement that her father was not possessing any
property which could be said to be his self acquired
property. But now it was incumbent upon the plaintiff
Kanwar Manjitinder Singh since deceased (through his
legal heirs) to prove that properties as reflected in
Annexure A1 were not the self acquired properties of Raja
Harinder Singh. Mere admission of a party regarding the
nature of the property is not sufficient to decide the

117
nature of the property. In holding so, reliance is placed by

me on the law laid down in case Molad Vs Smt. Santo
1968 CLJ 11. Further, in case Matu Ram Vs Kartar
2004 (2) PLR 569 it was held that even admission
of a party may not be enough to hold the property
to be ancestral or co-parcenar, so as to prove the
nature of property. Court goes only by evidence
that may come on the record of the case. Further,
all properties are to be presumed non-ancestral or self
acquired properties in the hands of owner and heavy and
serious onus rests upon the person asserting it not so. But
both the plaintiffs have totally failed to prove that the
properties under question were ancestral in the hands of
owner. As such, it can safely be concluded that property
in the hands of deceased Raja Harinder Singh were his
self
acquired
properties.
Therefore,
Rule
of
primogeniture is not applicable and the plaintiff Kanwar

Manjinder Inder Singh, since deceased (through his legal
heirs) has no right to seek any claim over the properties
of deceased Raja Harinder Singh. Further, the plaintiff
Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur being the legal heir of deceased
Raja Harinder Singh has equal right to inherit the
property with defendant Maharani Deepinder Kaur by
way of natural succession. There is no cogent and
convincing evidence by virtue of which it could be said

118
that plaintiff Amrit Kaur ever relinquished her rights of

inheritance in the estate of her father.
72.There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for
the defendants that in earlier judgments of different
Courts Will under question was validated, therefore, this
Court has no power to decide the question with regard to
execution of Will under question. It is undisputed that in
the earlier suits which have been decided by the Courts at
District Faridkot, present plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit
Kaur was not a party in those cases. In case Angoori VS
Moti Ram 2002 (3) PLR 616 it was held that where
the plaintiff was not party to the earlier suit, then
the plaintiff is not bound to the observations
made in the earlier judgement.
73.On the basis of oral evidence coupled with documentary
evidence produced by the plaintiff Amrit Kaur, she has
proved her right of inheritance in the suit properties by
way of natural succession. Plaintiff Kanwar Manjit Inder
Singh, since deceased has failed to established his claim
in the suit properties.
74.Here, I would discuss as to whether the suit of
the plaintiff Amrit Kaur is maintainable or not. It
is undisputed that suit of plaintiff Kanwar Manjit Inder
Singh is not maintainable as per my discussion in the
above mentioned paras. It has been contended by learned

119
counsel for the defendants that since the consequential

reliefs were given up by learned counsel for the plaintiff
vide his statement recorded in the Court on 9-11-1995,
therefore, in the absence of consequential reliefs, mere
declaratory suit is not maintainable. In support of his
arguments, he made reference to the law laid down in
case Ram Saran Vs Ganga Devi AIR 1972 SC 2685.
He also contended that in view of statement of learned
counsel for the plaintiff, now the suit is not maintainable.
75.Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the plaintiff
has argued that the statement given by Sh. Naresh
Prabhakar, Advocate was valid upto filing of amended
suit and no order was passed thereon by the Court. Even
the defendants did not accept the statement and insisted
for payment of advoleram court fee. The Court never
allowed the plaintiff to wave her claim with regard to
consequential reliefs. In support of his arguments,
learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the law laid
down in cases Jaidev Gupta Vs Inder Dass 1994
(55) DLT 593, Rama Swami Pillai Vs Badra AIR
1920 Madras 232
76.From perusal of order dated 9-11-1995 it reveals that Sh.
Naresh Prabhakar, learned counsel for the plaintiff Amrit
Kaur made a statement vide which he stated that relief of
consequential reliefs be treated as given up. Order dated

120
9-11-1995 passed by the then learned Senior Sub Judge is

reproduced as under:Present: Counsel for the parties.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Naresh Prabhakar
has today made statement giving up the relief of
consequential relief wherever occurring in the head note
and prayer clause of the amended plaint. Ld. Counsel for
the defendant seeks adjournment to argue on the effect of
this statement on the value of suit for the purpose of
court fee and jurisdiction. To come up for arguments on
8-12-1995.
SSJ/9-11-95
77.Now on perusal of this order it is crystal clear that
statement of Sh. Naresh Prabhakar was never considered
and was kept open and there is nothing in this order to
suggest that the Court allowed Sh. Naresh Prabhakar to
give up the relief of consequential reliefs as claimed by
the plaintiff Amrit Kaur. In fact, case was adjourned on
the request of defendants to argue on the point with
regard to the effect of statement of learned counsel for
the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was not allowed to give up
her relief of consequential reliefs as per statement of her
counsel, therefore, now the defendants have no right to
blow hot and cold by same breath that suit is not
maintainable in the absence of consequential reliefs.

121
Since, no effective order was passed by the Court and the

point of statement was kept open and it was kept open by
the defendants themselves, therefore, now they can not
say that suit is not maintainable in the absence of
consequential reliefs. The plaintiff has right to seek the
consequential reliefs and it was never given up by her
because the statement of her counsel was never allowed
to be acted upon by the Court. Moreover, Court fees was
deposited for the consequential reliefs which goes to
show that neither the court accepted the statement of
counsel for plaintiff nor the defendants at any point of
time, allowed the plaintiff Amrit Kaur to give up her
consequential reliefs. As such, the suit instituted by
plaintiff Amrit Kaur is maintainable in the eyes of law.
78.Here I would like to discuss as to whether the
suit filed by plaintiff Amrit Kaur is within time.
79. Learned counsel for the defendants argued that suit of
plaintiff is not within time. The plaintiff moved an
application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC on 18-11-1993 seeking
amendment of plaint so as to add certain reliefs in the
head note of plaint and para no.5 and 5A in the body of
plaint and also sought the amendment in the prayer
clause in the same term as claimed in the head note of
plaint. Application for amendment was resisted by the
defendants by filing reply. However, said application was

122
allowed vide order dated 19-2-1994 and the question of

limitation was left open to be ascertained after leading of
evidence by the parties. As per the provisions of
Limitation Act, period of limitation to seek relief of
declaration for getting the Will set aside is only three
years from the date of knowledge. In the present case,
admittedly the plaintiff came to know about the Will in
question on the date of last rites of her father. But the
declaration that Will is invalid, void and inconsistent has
been set up after expiry of limitation, therefore, suit is
time barred. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
relied upon the law laid down in case 1996 (2) RRR
323.
arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties
on this point.
81.Since in the foregoing issues, this Court has observed that
the Will under question is invalid and is not binding upon
the rights of plaintiff Amrit Kaur, as such where suit is
maintained for possession on the basis of inheritance,
then there is no period of limitation prescribed. Reliance
in this regard is placed by me on the law laid down in
case Mohinder Singh Vs Kashmir Singh 1982 (2)
LLR 76 (DB), Ganpat Vs Laxman 2008 (4) PLR 8.
Even otherwise the suit of plaintiff is not time barred. It

123
is admitted case of the parties that Raja Harinder Singh

died on 16-10-1989. Meaning thereby, succession to the
estate of Raja wasopened on 16-10-1989. The Will which
has already been set aside by me in the foregoing issues,
was allegedly executed on 1-6-1982. As per admitted case
of the defendants, the plaintiff first time came to know
about the execution of the alleged Will on 16-10-1989.
Present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 15-10-1992.
For a suit based on inheritance, limitation is 12 years.
Article 65 of Limitation Act lays down 12 years of
limitation period for possession of immovable properties
or any interest therein based on title and time began to
run when possession of the defendants has become
adverse to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff could file
suit for possession on the basis of inheritance to her
father in time after death of her father and that suit could
be defeated by the defendants successfully if they would
have proved that their possession was adverse and their
adverse possession has extinguished the possession of
plaintiff. In this case, there could be no question of
adverse possession when their possession was of 12 years'
duration form the death of Raja Harinder Singh. More so,
no such plea was set up by the defendants in their
pleadings. As such, the suit of plaintiff Amrit Kaur is
within time.

124
82.Here I would like to discuss as to whether the

plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts ?
83.The plaintiff Amrit Kaur is not entitled for rendition of
accounts from the defendants. It is available to partners
of a firm for dissolution of partnership of firm and when
there is fiduciary relationship between the parties to the
lis. But in the instant case, there is no dispute between
the partners and there is no fiduciary relationship
between the parties to the lis as Trust is held by me as
non-existent. Moreover, such a right can not be claimed
as matter of right. Accordingly, the plaintiff Amrit Kaur is
not entitled for rendition of accounts. I have no doubt on
the law cited by learned counsels for the defendants, but
the same are not applicable to the facts of the present
case. My view are fully fortified by the law cited by
learned counsel for the plaintiff Amrit Kaur.
84. Now for the cost of repetition the Will in question is not
genuine. My view in this regard are fully supported by the
following authorities:(i)
Rajiv Kumar Vs Sushil Kumar 2003 (4) RCR

(C)31
(ii) Dhan Kaur Vs Bant Singh 2004 (3) RCR

(C)146
(iii) Surjit Singh Vs Sarwan Singh RSA No.2236
of
2006.

125
85. As a cumulative effect of my above discussion, I have

arrived at a irresistible and inescapable conclusion that
plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur is entitled to succeed
with defendant no.1 qua the estate of deceased Raja
Harinder Singh by way of natural succession to the extent
of half share each of the properties which are fully
detailed and described in annexure A1 except the
properties which have been acquired either by the State
Governments or the Central Government. Further, the
Meharwal Khewaji Trust and its Trustees, executors are
having no value and existence in the eyes of law. The
Trust is having no legal entity and is non-est.
Accordingly, all these issues are hereby decided in favour
of plaintiff Amrit Kaur and against the defendants and
plaintiff Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh, since deceased
(through his legal heirs) accordingly.
ISSUE NO.9
Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and
misjoinder of parties? If so,what is its effect?
OPD
86.During the course of arguments, this issue was not
pressed. However, the suit is bad for non-joinder and
misjoinder of necessary parties. As such, this issue is
hereby decided in favour of defendants and against the
plaintiff.

126
ISSUE NO.10
Whether the suit is not properly valued for the
purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? If so, what
is its effect? OPD
87.It has been contended by learned counsel for the
defendants that the suit is not properly valued and proper
court fees has not been affixed by the plaintiffs according
to market value of the properties in dispute. They have
also argued that this point was kept open by the
directions of the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, this
question be decided. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the plaintiff argued that suit has been properly valued
for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiff
filed the suit in the year 1992, but the defendants raised
objection regarding payment of inadequate court fee. The
plaintiff filed an application for depositing the court fee
in the Court and revision filed by the defendants against
the order was dismissed. No appeal was filed in Hon'ble
Supreme Court. So the matter regarding the court fee has
become final. The Court fees was filed by the plaintiff
regarding the entire estate of Raja Harinder Singh on the
date of filing of the suit i.e. 15-10-1992 by assessing its
value as Rs.15.79 crores. It is almost double the value
assessed by Wealth Tax Authority.The plaintiff filed
application dated 15-9-2005 for depositing of court fee of

127
Rs.15.43 lacs after calculating the value of estate of Raja

Harinder Singh. The defendants filed reply dated 25-112005 vide Ex P176. Application regarding deposit of
Court fee Ex P175 was allowed by the Court vide order
dated 23-12-2005.
submissions of learned counsels for the parties on this
issue.
89.Onus was resting upon the defendants to prove the
market value of the properties in dispute. Evidence as
discussed in the earlier issues, goes to show that the
defendants have failed to give the exact and correct
market value of the properties in dispute which have to
be inherited by the plaintiff Amrit Kaur by way of natural
succession, because the Will has already been set aside by
me in foregoing issues. As such, considering the stand of
the plaintiff Amrit Kaur as correct qua the point of court
fee as assessed by her on the basis of record of Wealth
Tax Authorities. The plaintiff has paid the court fee for
sum of Rs.15,43,550/-. My views are fully fortified by the
law laid down in case Deepinder Kaur Dhillon Vs
General Public 1996(3) RCR(C)607. This issue is
accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff Amrit Kaur and
against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.11

128
Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction

to try the suit? OPD
90.During course of arguments, this issue was not pressed.
However, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is not
lacking. As per the evidence available on record, this
Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
As such, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff Amrit
Kaur and against the defendants accordingly.
ISSUE NO.16
RELIEF
91.As an upshot of my above discussion on the above issues,
suit of the plaintiff Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur is hereby
partly dismissed and partly decreed with costs and the
Will dated 1-6-1982 is hereby declared as null and void,
not binding upon the rights of plaintiff Amrit Kaur. The
plaintiff Amrit Kaur is entitled to joint possession to the
extent of (half) share with defendant no.1 Maharani
Deepinder Kaur qua the properties fully detailed and
described in Annexure A1, except the properties which
have been acquired by any State Governments or Central
Government. Trust which was constituted on the basis of
the alleged Will is hereby declared as non-existent. The
defendants
mortgaging,
are
also
restrained
transferring,
leasing,
from
alienating,
encumbering
or
exchanging the suit property as fully detailed and

129
described in Annexure A1. Annexure A1 be treated as part

of decree. Suit being maintained by plaintiff Kanwar
Manjit Inder Singh through his legal heir is hereby
dismissed with no order as to costs. Separate decree
sheets be prepared and copy of this judgment be placed
in the consolidated suit. File be consigned to record
room. Compliance be made.
Pronounced in open Court:

(Rajnish K.Sharma)
25-7-2013
Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)
Chandigarh
Note: This judgement contains one hundred and twenty nine
pages and each page has been checked and signed.
(Rajnish K.Sharma)
Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)
Chandigarh

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Latest Jugment 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Latest Jugment 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Latest Jugment 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

In the court of Rajnish K. Sharma,

Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey Chand

Rajkumar Jai Chand Mehtab son of Maharaja Sadey

Maharawal Khewaji Trust through its Board of Trustees:

Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey

Raj Kumar Jai Chand Mehtab son of Maharaja

Lalit Mohan Gupta son of Sh. Bimal Kumar Gupta,

Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh, Chief Legal

S.K. Kataria son of Sh. Harbans Lal, Street no.5,

Maj. Gurdeep Inder Singh son of Sardar Bahadur

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

Gurdev Singh, Fort Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh.

Dr. P.S.Sandhu son of S.Shamsher Singh Sandhu,

M/S ANZ Grindley Bank, Bombay through its manager.

Kanwar Manjit Inder Singh (now deceased) son of

Bharat Inder Singh son of late Kanwar Manjit Inder

Raj Kumari Dev Inder Kaur daughter of late

Suit for Declaration

Bharat Inder Singh son of late Kanwar Manjit Inder

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

Maharani Deepinder Kaur wife of Maharaja Sadey Chand

Rajkumari Mahdeep Inder Kaur d/o late Raja Harinder

Sh. Ranjit Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh, Chief Legal

Sh. S.K. Kataria son of Sh. Harbans Lal,Street No.5,

Maj. Gurdeep Inder Singh son of S.Bahadur Kartar Singh,

Sh. Harbans Singh s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh, Gali No.6,

Sh. Gurdev Singh, Fort Mani Majra, UT, Chandigarh,

Sh. Jagir Singh son of Sh. Bhag Singh, Bir Bholuwara

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

M/S ANZ Grindley Bank, Head Office, Bombay.

Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu, Faridkot.

Meharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot.

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (added as defendant vide order

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

defendants no.1 and 2 are the daughters of late Raja

After independence of the

country, various princely State were merged into the

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

of his making over the administration of the State to the

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

alongwith defendants no.1 and 2 after the death of Raja

primogeniture is applicable, the plaintiff is entitled to

In the alternative and

without prejudice to the foregoing and assuming without

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

any manner except for the maintenance of the corpus of

The alleged Will is

surrounded by suspicious circumstances, therefore,

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

Law (though not admitted) even under the custom

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

the Trust just life the wife and eldest daughter.

provision has been made in the alleged Will for the

The alleged Will is result of

misrepresentation, undue influence played on Raja

Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Vs Maharani Deepinder Kaur and others

the alleged Will was kept blank and was subsequently

By way of alleged Will Raja