TEJ KAUR AND ANR. versus KIRPAL SINGH AND ANR.

TEJ KAUR AND ANR. versus KIRPAL SINGH AND ANR.

When a Division Bench of the High Court differs on proof of a will (a question of fact) and no majority opinion emerges, s.98(2) CPC requires confirmation of the decree below; the Supreme Court cannot override this legislative mandate by examining merits afresh under Article 136.

Parties
Appellant: Tej Kaur; Respondent: Kirpal Singh; Respondent: Har Dev Singh; Respondent: Ms. Madhu Mool Chandani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Division Bench Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Proof of Will, Procedure When Bench Is Divided
Civil Procedure Appeals Proof of Will Procedure When Bench Is Divided

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tej Kaur

Appellant

Kirpal Singh

Respondent

Har Dev Singh

Respondent

Ms. Madhu Mool Chandani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Division Bench Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether finding on proof of will is a question of fact
  2. 2 What is the consequence under s.98 CPC if Division Bench is split on proof of will
  3. 3 Whether Supreme Court can re-examine finding of fact in such circumstance under Article 136

Ratio Decidendi

When a Division Bench of the High Court differs on proof of a will (a question of fact) and no majority opinion emerges, s.98(2) CPC requires confirmation of the decree below; the Supreme Court cannot override this legislative mandate by examining merits afresh under Article 136.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Parties to bear their own costs throughout