Supreme Court of India
PARSINI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus ATMA RAM AND ORS.
- Decided
- 22 February 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 2 S.C.R. 982 · 1996 INSC 300
- Also cited as
- AIR 1996 SC 1558
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated April 2, 1979 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 521 of 1975. The Division Bench of the High Court has gone into the genuineness of the Will executed by Bhagwana on October 15, 1957. Bhagwana died on September 2, 1958. The appellant laid claim over the property of her father. The trial Court and the appellate Court upheld the Will and denied the relief. Learned single Judge in Second Appeal No. 451 of 1972 by order dated September 16, 1975 set aside the judgment and granted the decree. In the Letters Patent Appeal the Division Bench restored the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
p. 982, margin F
Learned counsel for the appellant, after elaborate preparation of the facts, though of complicated nature, has contended that in the first litigation between the collaterals the appellant, the appellant was not a party. The courts below, having held that there is no proof of collateralship, ought not to have gone into the genuineness of the Will and record a finding in that behalf. Even otherwise, the finding does not find the appellant a party to the earlier suit. In this suit, admittedly, however, the Will was not produced and one of the testators was not examined. Learned single Judge of the High- Court found that the execution of the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances.
pp. 982–983, margin H
The burden is on the propounder of the Will to remove all the doubts regarding the genuineness of the Will and, therefore, the Division Bench, the trial Court as also the appellate Court were not right in cognising the Will. Having considered the contention with reference to the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Division Bench and also the trial Court and the appellate Court, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench cannot be said to be unwarranted. It is the case of the respondents that the Will was lost. Consequently, permission was given to lead secondary evidence and on the basis thereof, secondary evidence was laid by the parties and the witnesses were examined in proof of the Will and in rebuttal thereof. The trial court and the appellate Court have considered all the facts and circumstances and have recorded a finding that the Will was executed by Bhagwana in favour of Atma Ram respondent No. 1.
p. 983, margin B
On a finding of fact, though the learned single Judge could go into the question of law, he confined his consideration in a second appeal under a limited parameter. It would appear that the learned single Judge trenched as if he was the first appellate court and considered the evidence by himself and came to the conclusion that the genuineness of the Will had not been proved. The Division Bench, therefore, has rightly gone into the question within the parameters of law and held that the learned single Judge was no_t right in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the trial Cour~ and the appellate Court. Thus, we consider that there is no substantial question of law warranting interference.
p. 983, margin E
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. G.N. Appeal dismissed.
p. 983, margin G