GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR

    HISTORY OF THE CASE GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR:

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR
    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR

    After the divorce of Bhajan Singh and his wife Gurmail Kaur, there had been no correspondence with each other over the years.

    Their two daughters Angrez Kaur and Paramjit Kaur left with their mother while they were of minor age during the divorce and resided with their uncle and the brother of their father, Maghar Singh in Jalowal Village.

    Bhajan Singh executed a Will in favor of Gurcharan Singh, Gurnam Singh, and Kulwant Singh who looked after him and nursed him while he was domiciled in the village of Siraj Majra and divided the property situated in that village, in Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib equally among them in a Civil Suit in accord to his free will and full consent and without any undue influence nor through any means of fraud or coercion and it was recorded officially in a Family Settlement. In the year 1998 Bhajan Singh passed away.

    FACTS OF THE CASE GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR:

    Ensuing the death of Bhajan Singh, his biological daughters Angrez Kaur and Paramjit Kaur filed a Civil Suit in 1998 claiming that the decree made on the Civil Suit in the year 1994, regarding the property given to Gurcharan Singh and Ors was procured through fraud and coercion and was under the wrong jurisdiction, illegal and null and void.

    Following the suit filed by the Plaintiff, Gurcharan Singh and Ors filed a written statement and claimed that the suit property was recognized and assented by Bhajan Singh in an official recorded statement where it declared the rightful claim of the Appellants and that the decree was not based on fraud, coercion or illegal and was done with the consent of Bhajan Singh.

    It was also affirmed that after the divorce of Bhajan Singh and his wife Gurmail Kaur, the daughters never once came back to Bhajan Singh after they started to reside with their uncle Maghar Singh. The will executed by Bhajan Singh was valid. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs in the retrospective of the facts.

    The aggrieved party then filed an appeal before the District Judge. In 2004 the first appeal of the plaintiff was allowed by an Additional District Judge. Gurcharan Singh and Ors filed a second appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court in the grieve of the judgment made by the High Court.

    ARGUMENTS:

    Pallav Sisodia in favor of the appellant held that the decision given by the Trial Court in setting aside the appeal of the Plaintiff was reasonable as the Will executed by Bhajan Singh was legal and valid and was not effectuate by him through any means of fraud or coercion, and that after the divorce of Bhajan Singh and his wife, his daughters never once associated with their father after residing with their uncle.

    And the appellant Gurcharan Singh & Ors were serving Bhajan Singh and treated him as their father. It was further submitted that the Family settlement was valid even if the parties were not related by blood. The High Court also discarded that the compromise decree made on 9th January 1995 required a compulsory registration under section 17 of the Registration Act and that the same compulsory registration and decree not registered was not a valid one.

    Druv Mehta, in favor of the Plaintiffs, held the decree made on 9th January 1995 was obtained by fraud as the appellant represented themselves to be the nephew of the deceased but the fact was never proved. And the decree made on 9th January 1995 was compulsorily registered under section 17 and was not registered hence, the High Court has rightfully discarded the decree. And Family settlement cannot be held between parties who are not related to each other.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the decree made on 09. 01. 1995 was fraud or not, was taken into consideration.

    DECISION:

    It was held that the decree which was passed on the basis of mutation and sanctioned on 3rd March 1995 was valid and as Bhajan Singh was alive during that time he never once objected to such decree.

    It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.

    CONCLUSION:

    Is blood relation important? Should the Appellant be accounted as the rightful owner of the suit property?

    Regarding the fact that his daughters never approached to acknowledge their father over the years even though they were supposed to be the sole heir to his property. Bhajan Singh did not mention his daughter nor his wife in the will. And executed it in favor of Gurcharan Singh & Ors as they were the only people who looked after him as their own Father. A person who is given the right to any property doesn’t need to be related to that person by blood.

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR: It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR: It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR: It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR: It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR: It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR: It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.

    GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS VS ANGREZ KAUR & ANR: It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed. It was held that there was no fraud played and the decree was given on the mentioned date is valid and the appeal was allowed.