The judgment affirms that a partition decree cannot be validly passed without impleading all necessary co-sharers as defendants, and strict proof of a Will is required to exclude legal heirs; this ruling upholds settled law and serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/4308/1999 of MANMOHAN SINGH Vs PRITAM SINGH ETC. CNR PHHC010476731999 |
| Date of Registration | 30-10-1999 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction; affirms established principles for partition suits and proof of Wills |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the lower appellate court’s dismissal of the suit; reinforces existing legal requirements for partition suits |
| Type of Law | Civil Law – Procedural and Substantive (Partition, Inheritance, Procedure, Evidence) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that all co-sharers recorded in revenue records must be impleaded as necessary parties in a suit for partition, as any decree passed without them would amount to a partial partition and may affect the rights of absent parties. Further, a Will must be strictly proved by complying with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; absence of examination of any attesting witness to the Will is a fatal defect. The mere absence of an express plea regarding non-joinder of parties does not prevent the court from considering the issue if necessary for proper adjudication. The appellate court’s findings on facts are binding in second appeal unless shown to be perverse. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The judgment refers to the statutory requirements under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but does not mention specific prior judicial precedents by name. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on Section 63 (Indian Succession Act) and Section 68 (Indian Evidence Act) for the proof of Wills; Procedural law as regards necessary parties in suits for partition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff, one of three brothers, filed a partition suit for 1/3rd share in a residential (Abadi) property, claiming rights based on a Will. The trial court decreed in his favour primarily based on the Will and related evidence. The first appellate court set aside this decree and dismissed the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties (other co-sharers/legal heirs) and lack of proper proof of the Will. The second appeal against this appellate decision was dismissed, the court holding both grounds fatal to the suit. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly the Supreme Court of India |
| Follows | Statutory requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirmed that the presence and joinder of all co-sharers, as reflected in revenue records, is mandatory in partition proceedings; failure is fatal and renders the suit non-maintainable.
- The judgment reinforces the necessity of strict compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act when a Will is relied upon; examination of at least one attesting witness is indispensable.
- The absence of an explicit objection regarding non-joinder of parties does not preclude the court from dismissing the suit if necessary parties are missing.
- The findings of fact by the first appellate court, particularly regarding proof of the Will and necessary parties, are binding in second appeals unless proven perverse.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined whether a decree for partition can be granted in the absence of all necessary co-sharers, noting the jamabandi (Ex. P16) showed several co-sharers recorded along with the claimed share of the plaintiff and defendants.
- The first appellate court had dismissed the suit for non-joinder of these necessary parties, observing that a partial partition cannot be ordered and the rights of non-impleaded co-sharers would be adversely affected.
- The court further found that the Will dated 16.12.1979 was not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; mandatory attestation and witness examination were lacking.
- The trial court’s reliance on ancillary evidence (electricity bills, site plans, oral statements) could not substitute for mandatory legal compliance in proving a Will.
- The court held that lack of factual or legal perversity in the findings of the first appellate court left no ground for interference in second appeal, and no substantial question of law arose.
- It concluded that procedural lapses such as non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of statutory proof of title are substantive and go to the root of maintainability, thus justifying the dismissal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The lower appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court’s judgment on a technical ground (non-joinder).
- No specific plea regarding non-joinder of parties was made in the written statement, nor was an issue framed on this point.
- Only the three brothers had any interest in the suit property.
- The trial court correctly assessed both oral and documentary evidence.
Respondent:
- The Will was not proved in accordance with the law; no attesting witnesses were examined.
- The plaintiff deliberately omitted to implead other legal heirs/co-sharers, especially daughters and other persons named in the revenue records (jamabandi), who would be directly affected by any decree, warranting dismissal for non-joinder.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, one of three brothers, filed a civil suit seeking exclusive possession by way of partition of a 1/3rd share in a residential property in Village Agampur, claiming succession through a Will dated 16.12.1979. The trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour, finding no prior partition and relying on documentary and oral evidence. An appeal by one brother led the appellate court to reverse this decree, holding that not all co-sharers (as per revenue records) had been arrayed as parties and that the Will was not proved in accordance with statutory requirements. The plaintiff challenged this on second appeal, which was dismissed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925: Requires that an unprivileged Will be attested by two or more witnesses; due execution and attestation must be proved.
- Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Where a document is required by law to be attested, at least one attesting witness must be called to prove its execution.
- The court strictly enforced these evidentiary rules: without examination of any attesting witness, the Will cannot be deemed proved, affecting the succession claim.
- The court highlighted that a partition decree, by procedural civil law, cannot be passed unless all necessary parties (all co-sharers) are present.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies existing legal requirements concerning the proof of Wills and the necessity of joining all co-sharers in partition suits.