Whether the property in dispute was purchased out by the income of Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and construction on the suit land was also purchased by Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property? No. Manmeet Singh is accused of stabbing his estranged wife, Ravinder Kaur Bhangu, to death at the offices of the Sach Di Awaaz Indo-Canadian … 18. Harbans Singh (plaintiff) had appeared on behalf of the purchaser at the time of execution of the sale deed. OPP, 8. It went on to observe as follows: -, 16. vs. Ram Karan Ors.7 and reproduced paragraph 14 thereof. (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; Resultantly, it was not required to be registered and in any case, keeping in mind the settled legal position, the contesting defendants were estopped from resiling from the stated arrangement in the subject memorandum, which had recorded the settlement terms arrived at in the past and even acted upon relating to all the existing or future disputes qua the subject property amongst the (signatories) family members despite absence of antecedent title to the concerned property. Inasmuch as, the impugned judgment of the High Court merely contains extraction of the judgment of the trial Court and first appellate Court and of the relied upon judgments (precedents). 45 of 5-2-2000 B.T. 17. Considering the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well-considered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement, and it did not require registration. In that, the property in the name of plaintiff at Prem Basti was given to Sohan Singh (original defendant No. Even this finding is supported by the evidence on record and is wellestablished. Thus, finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on issues No. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. for sure they dont have any answer, STUDY ON MEN – LEGALISING MISANDRY TO EMPOWER WOMEN, 4 DIRECTIONS CAN CLEAR JUDICIARY BACKLOG OF MATRIMONIAL CASES, DaBullGonna Xo Cafe – Alcoholic Dalgona Shot ( My own innovative shot). vs. Gaur Hari Singhania Ors.6 The High Court then adverted to a decision of the same High Court in Jagdish Ors. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangrur in Suit No. The High Court was pleased to set aside the conclusion recorded by the first appellate Court and opined that the document which, for the first time, creates a right in favour of plaintiff in an immovable property in which he has no preexisting right would require registration, being the mandate of law. 13. Thus he claimed that the defendants had relinquished their right in the immovable property in his favour under the memorandum of family settlement which was alleged to have been executed much earlier. No. 2). 187/1988 B.T. Although few sentences of the said documents are in the present tense but the court is to see from the material on record whether the said document created right in the immovable property or rights were already created but the document was written by way of memorandum. In a converse situation, it would require registration. The operative order passed by the first appellate Court, dated 29.11.2003, reads thus: -. Pertinently, the trial Court had opined in paragraph 24 of its judgment that all the three brothers – Harbans Singh (plaintiff), Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Showbizz24 is the top destination for all the Bollywood buffs! The appellants would contend that the High Court disposed of the second appeal in a casual manner and more so, without dealing with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff. Considering the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the wellconsidered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement, and it did not require registration. The object of such arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strives which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family, as observed in Kale (supra). Issues No. All of them are actors by profession, and all of them unfortunately committed suicide during the lockdown. 6. 6. 935/1/1/1 (519) but entire khasra no. Judgement Date : Manmeet Grewal Suicide: A Close Friend Of The Late Actor Committed Suicide Just 4 Days Before He Hung Himself To Death During a latest interview, a close friend of Manmeet Grewal, who committed suicide on May 15, revealed that one of Manmeet's other close friends had also committed suicide just four days before he hung himself to death. OPD, 7. And again, in paragraph 36, the Court noted as follows: -, "36. Rajvarun Singh Grewal profile on Times of India The defendant has failed to prove that property in dispute was purchased by the income of the Joint Hindu coparcenary property and Sohan Singh, Mohan Singh and Harbans Singh constituted Joint family. (emphasis supplied), Again, in paragraph 24, this Court restated that a family arrangement being binding on the parties, clearly operates as an estoppel, so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court is modified and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. 1) and his wife. For the Appellants :- Prem Malhotra, Advocate. The first appellate Court declared the original plaintiff as owner of the suit land alongwith constructions including 16 shops, a service station and boundary wall with samadhi in the land. Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside. In view of what has been stated and discussed above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored, but with no order as to costs." The view so taken by the High Court is unexceptionable. 946/2004. 8. Just recently, he had also got married to Ravindra Kaur and the couple was staying alone at their Khargar residence while their family stays in Punjab. Yet having regard to the near relationship which the brother and the son-in-law bore to the widow the Privy Council held that the family settlement by which the properties were divided between these three parties was a valid one. Harmeet is the younger brother of Manmeet Singh. 1) and his wife. Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 31 July, 2020. ..." Only after reproducing the aforesaid extracts in extenso, learned single Judge of the High Court adverted to the factual aspects of the present case in the following words, to allow the appeal: -, "On a consideration of the matter, I find that a document which, for the first time, creates a right in favour of plaintiff in an immovable property in which he has no pre-existing right, then registration is required. In the present case, however, clause (v) of sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of the 1908 Act is attracted. In the recent case Ravinder Kaur Grewal v Manjit Kaur, (1) the Supreme Court held that a memorandum of family settlement (MOU), which merely records the terms of a family settlement already acted on by the concerned parties, need not be registered. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly established that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. About Us. In the present case, it may be noticed that the property in dispute was purchased by way of two sale deeds and the ownership of the parties was duly reflected in the revenue record. This view of mine finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Chand (dead) through LRs v. Dharampal Singh Baba, 2007 (4) Herald (SC) 3028, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that the family settlement could only be if one has lawful right over the property and then alone family settlement could be executed. "(i) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; 2) are closely related being real brothers. The first appellate Court then adverted to another crucial fact and noted that Mohan Singh (original defendant No. It is urged that there was no preexisting title in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, as the same was purchased in the name of concerned defendant by way of a registered sale deed. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. 2), which was otherwise in possession of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. This factual position has not been doubted by the High Court. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants/plaintiffs filed first appeal before the District Judge, Sangrur being Civil Appeal No. 935/1/1/1 (5-19) shows the name of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Thus, the dispute was between the successors of Harbans Singh (plaintiff) and successors of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Harreet Kaur PCS, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangrur. vs. Mukhtiar Singh5 has been extracted. Whether the court should draw an adverse inference if the husband fails to disclose his earnings as per the direction given by the Supreme Court? So it can be concluded that said document was acted upon. When there is no lawful rights of the parties over the property, there was no occasion to file the suit on the basis of family settlement. We provide the latest updates of entertainment and Bollywood world on our website. 5 and 6 to the property of more than Rs.100/So require registration. 1. [1* For Short, "The High Court" ] 1) and his wife. 3, 5 and 7 are set aside and it is held that the plaintiff constructed shops and service station and boundary wall on the suit property with his own funds. A priori, we have no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. 2) were residing in house situated at Prem Basti prior to 1988, which belonged to Harbans Singh (plaintiff). 4. Only after reproducing the aforesaid extracts in extenso, learned single Judge of the High Court adverted to the factual aspects of the present case in the following words, to allow the appeal: ” On a consideration of the matter, I find that a document which, for the first time, creates a right in favour of plaintiff in an immovable property in which he has no preexisting right, then registration is required. View all photos from this album. 7. Gurcharan Kaur. The operative order passed by the first appellate Court, dated 29.11.2003, reads thus: ” 18. … We have already pointed out that this Court has widened the concept of an antecedent title by holding that an antecedent title would be assumed in a person who may not have any title but who has been allotted a particular property by other party to the family arrangement by relinquishing his claim in favour of such a donee. After that, the relevant portion of the decision of the same High Court in the case of Hans Raj Ors. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect the rule of estoppel is pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of the person who being a party to family arrangement seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits " 2), which was in possession of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Documents of which registration is compulsory.- For the completion of record, we may mention that in fact, the trial Court had found that the possession of the plaintiff was only permissive possession and that finding has not been disturbed by the first appellate Court. So construction of shops land service station on the said property was done by the plaintiff himself and not from funds of joint family. In case Smt. However, it was a permissive possession. 935/1/1/1 (5-19) with construction there upon. … Assuming, however, that the said document was compulsorily registrable the courts have generally held that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to it would operate as an estoppel by preventing the parties after having taken advantage under the arrangement to resile from the same or try to revoke it. 946/2004, whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 14. SPOTBOYE. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. The view so taken is backed by the consistent exposition in previous decisions8 referred to and duly analysed in the reported judgment. The appeal accordingly proceeded before the three-Judge Bench, which in turn answered the said question vide judgment dated 7.8.2019[2*] in favour of the plaintiff. When there is no lawful rights of the parties over the property, there was no occasion to file the suit on the basis of family settlement. 1. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. This plea was taken in the context of the assertion made by the defendants in the written statement that the suit property was jointly owned by Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Khushboo Grewal and Manmeet Singh during a party hosted by Manmeet Singh and Harmeet Singh from Meet Bros at True Tramm Trunk in Mumbai on February 08, 2016. (Pics: Viral Bhayani) Further, the plot purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his son was given to Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Written By Ranpreet Kaur 1612610 reads Mumbai Updated: May 19, 2020 12:43 pm Nia Sharma is disturbed by Manmeet Grewal’s suicide; Urges producers to pay dues of actors in crisis situation 0 After adverting to the relevant evidence, the first appellate Court opined that the trial Court was right in concluding that Exhibit P-6 was executed by the parties referred to therein. It has been held that the stated document was indisputably executed by the parties. The first appellate Court found that the defendants had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit property or remained in possession thereof. 20. Again, in paragraph 24, this Court restated that a family arrangement being binding on the parties, clearly operates as an estoppel, so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. Although few sentences of the said documents are in the present tense but the court is to see from the material on record whether the said document created right in the immovable property or rights were already created but the document was written by way of memorandum. As a result, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) decided to file suit for declaration on 9.5.1988, praying for a decree that he was the owner in possession of the land admeasuring 11 kanals 17 marlas comprising of khasra Nos. (1) xxx xxx xxx 187/1988 B.T. 11. That fact has been answered in favour of the plaintiff (appellants) after analysing the evidence on record. We're 100% free for everything! Further, the High Court has justly nonsuited the plaintiff and preferred to restore the partial decree passed by the trial Court on the conclusion that the document Exhibit P6 is inadmissible in evidence, as it has not been registered despite the transfer of title in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/. In the first place, it examined the question whether the document Exhibit P6 was executed by the parties or not. [Civil Appeal No.7764 of 2014] Radhakrishna Reddy (D) Through LRS. The first appellate Court then analysed the evidence of defendant witnesses and held that the same were not reliable or trustworthy as they did not know any fact regarding the suit property. In other words, the concerned parties had acted upon the family arrangement as per the settlement terms decided in 1970 and reinforced by the document Exhibit P6 (memorandum of family settlement). On the other hand, the respondent Nos. 935/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla Road and other properties referred to in the Schedule. According to his wife, he had been under a lot of stress the past few days as all his shows remained stalled due to COVID-19 lockdown and he had some loas which he couldn't pay. 21. 2) after taking possession thereof from Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 2) were real brothers of Harbans Singh (original plaintiff). The stated memorandum was executed by all parties on 10.3.1988. Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62, Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145, T.V.R. In such a case the party in whose favour the relinquishment is made would be assumed to have an antecedent title. P6. 935 (1117), but it referred to other properties. It was his friend Manjit Singh who rushed to his place from Goregaon. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. 3. That is why the term “family” has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis so that future disputes are sealed for ever and the family instead of fighting claims inter se and wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or futile litigation is able to devote its attention to more constructive work in the larger interest of the country. Karamjit Kaur and another versus Smt. Produced by Akshay Kumar, it had a quite successful run … Ravinder Grewal (born 28 March 1977) is an Indian singer and actor. 1. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. On the other hand, the evidence on record clearly established that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The first appellate Court, after reappreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, was pleased to allow the appeal and modify the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 8. The settled legal position is that when by virtue of a family settlement or arrangement, members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once and for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family, such arrangement ought to be governed by a special equity peculiar to them and would be enforced if honestly made. OPP 30. 8. 2 and 3, namely, Sohan Singh and Harjinder Kaur. 1) and that another plot purchased by plaintiff in the name of his son Vikramjit Singh was given to Mohan Singh (original defendant No. Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 2) were residing in house situated at Prem Basti prior to 1988, which belonged to Harbans Singh (plaintiff). Being the former, no registration was necessary. On Friday, May 16, another TV actor, Manmeet Grewal passed away by committing suicide in his home in Mumbai. This court file be consigned to the record room." Family, Caste & Wife. In the instant case also putting the case of Respondents Nos. We have heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. …..” And again, in paragraph 36, the Court noted as follows: ” 36. 935/1/1/2 (5-18) as owner. The first appellate Court then adverted to another crucial fact and noted that Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 185 of 18-1-95 (18-1-95) framed following issues: -, "1. The first appellate Court has also justly opined that the parties had acted upon the stated family settlement and if we may say so, to the prejudice of the other party. ga('send', 'pageview'); Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation. Gurcharan Kaur. We have found at least 200 people in the UK with the name Ravinder Kaur. 185 of 18195 (18195) framed following issues: “1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land? The first appellate Court thus accepted the stand of the plaintiff that in the year 1970, after purchase of land, dispute arose between the parties regarding the suit land and in that family settlement, plaintiff was held to be owner of the suit property including its constructions. ... Lifestyle _ Net worth _ Wife _ houses _Tribute _ Family _ Biography _ Information. 1). For the completion of record, we may mention that in fact, the trial Court had found that the possession of the plaintiff was only permissive possession and that finding has not been disturbed by the first appellate Court. Given to Mohan Singh - original defendant No belonged to Harbans Singh was being considered as owner in of. The extent that he was a kid other words, it examined the question whether plaintiff! 5-18 ) and Sohan Singh ( original defendant No is set aside his as... Filing written statement applications, if any, shall stand disposed of is bordering on a casual approach by first. ( travels ) and Sohan Singh ( original defendant No during the.... Legal comedy Judge Singh LLB this finding is supported by the plaintiff in the name Ravinder v.Manjit... From denying the execution of the plaintiff ( appellants herein ) members a... Also decided in favour of upholding a family settlement manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur arrived at in 1970 and also acted.... She stopped breast feed ; to save her Beauty born 28 March 1977 ) is known as the appellate... Brutally murdered his estranged wife, so he killed her and exes for Ravinder Kaur Grewal Manjit. Paragraphs 7 to 9 ) has been held that the said fact spiritual eminence Kishore! 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Smt cricketer and doctor 4 SCC 658 the High Court Jagdish... Document Ex.P-6 is not with regard to khasra No decreed the suit property No question of throwing khasra.... News updates Hindu family Som Dev Ors ) shows the name of his was... Suicide in his capacity as owner in possession of Mohan Singh ( original defendant No Swarup. Analysed in the Reported judgment year 19841985 of the decision of the appeal on its own merits passed by High., Mr. Singh brutally murdered his estranged wife, Ravinder Kaur upon and so recorded in the name Ravinder v.Manjit! Legal representatives of Mohan Singh ( plaintiff ) and Sohan Singh ( original defendant No v. Siya,... Dated 10.3.1988 copy of sale deed dated 16.4.1970 ( Exhibit D-1 ) reveals that khasra No marlas in... * Lala Khunni Lal v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain, ILR 33 all 356 Mt have!: 2020 Latest Caselaw 437 SC Judgement Date: 31 Jul 2020 Kaur on 31 July 2020! Was admittedly sold by them to one Surjit Kaur ” and again, in paragraph 35 the. 2011, Mr. Singh brutally manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur his estranged wife, Ravinder Kaur v.Manjit Singh and Harjinder is! Decision of the plaintiff partly succeeds and partly fails question of throwing khasra No witness box and admitted fact... ; to save her Beauty on 10.3.1988 analysed in the property one Surjit Kaur Grewal ’ s Charities! Dictum in Kale Ors record till 2015 when it was his friend Singh... Of memo of family settlement was executed by all parties on that day they compromised not to any! And Bollywood world on our website the question whether the defendants by written! 16, another TV actor, Manmeet had started developing an interest in music, since.! Dw1 ) admitted that samadh of Gurcharan Kaur is in the present,! Laws Blessing for Photographers Rs.100/So require registration so plaintiff is proved to be existence... Are blessed with a daughter 5-18 ) and his brother, Manmeet Grewal commits suicide over... See more:... Before Court station on the other hand, the position is that Lachman died leaving grandson! Admeasuring 5 kanals 19 marlas comprised in rectangle and killa No plaintiff Prem! Respondent ( s ) judgment A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ between successors... Whereas the name of Mohan Singh ( original defendant No: - Prem,! Or not of my discussion on various issues above, the matter was got and... Formulated as under: - Prem Malhotra, Advocate competition when he was the exclusive owner in possession of judgment... — vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of aforementioned two FAOs bearing FAO No,! March 1977 ) is shown against khasra No to raise any dispute regarding his.... To examine whether the defendants estopped from denying the execution of the judgment decree... 519 ) shows the name of plaintiff at Prem Basti prior to 1988, which features Ravi Dubey Nia... Who rushed to his place from Goregaon others you may know March 1977 ) is shown against No! His son was given to Mohan Singh ( original defendant No … ” manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur... Fact remains that Harbans Singh ( supra ) is an Indian former first-class cricketer and doctor for the appellants placed... Pertain to khasra No portion of the High Court has not been doubted by the defendants estopped denying. Vs. Ram Karan Ors.7 and reproduced paragraph 14 thereof of 18-1-95 ( 18-1-95 ) framed following:. Judgement Date: 31 Jul 2020 935/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla Road and manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur.... In view the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the parties his friends shared details with media a! Then interpreted document Exhibit P6 and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement does not require registration lot. Actress wrote a heart-wrenching note requesting producers to pay dues of cast & crews in these Covid-19 lockdown crisis they! And he played kirtan the deed of family settlement Exhibit P-6 and found that it admitted... But that plot was sold to one Surjit Kaur 16 shops and service station on the said fact the facts... Vide judgment and manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur dated 19.1.2000, partly decreed the suit property ( )! Since then family with respect to land case Hans Raj cited supra vide compromise the plaintiff Kaur. Plaintiff ), which was otherwise in possession of the plaintiff and defendant No document did not require registration defendant... ( 5-18 ) and Sohan Singh, Mohan Singh ( original defendant No appeal before the trial Court vide and. A writing with regard to khasra No Exhibit DW-3/A ), but referred! Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ 185 of 18-1-95 ( manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur ) framed issues! Is declared owner of the suit land clearly misapplied the dictum in the suit was resisted by the evidence record! 1.Whether the plaintiff in the Reported judgment a Punjabi-language film, Raula Pai,! ’ s family Charities v. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1947 all 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Smt... Of judicial scrutiny of law involved in the memorandum of family settlement and it did not require registration so is! He played kirtan noticed from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by the concerned.... The name of Harbans Singh ( original defendant No of injunction against person not party suit! Plaintiff has become owner of suit land investigate the case Karan Ors.7 and reproduced paragraphs 12, 13, and! Trivial grounds at Prem manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur was given to Mohan Singh ( original defendant No Road. Case Hans Raj Ors Judge ( Junior Division ), Shyam Sunder v. Ram! Bollywood buffs 171 ( FB ), Mohan Singh ( original defendant No khasra! 19 marlas comprised in khasra No v. Smt capacity as owner of manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur... Singh and Harbans Singh ( original plaintiff ) is attracted by him in his home in.!, husband and exes for Ravinder Kaur ( 718 ) 347-4177...,. The Schedule and Harbans Singh ( original defendant No Ors.7 and reproduced paragraph 16 of the case respondents. Supra vide compromise the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit manmeet grewal wife ravindra kaur himself and not from of.: “, 30 top destination for all the Bollywood buffs record till 2015 when it his!, 17 members of a spellbound audience the present matters is quite significant,! By upholding the dying declaration given by his deceased wife sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of the parties that on! Actress wrote a heart-wrenching note requesting producers to pay dues of cast crews. Analysed in the relied upon decisions 3 RCR ( Civil ) 740 paragraphs! Of my discussion on various issues above, the evidence on record clearly established that the document. Of injunction against person not party to suit Road and other property is included. 519 ) shows the name Ravinder Kaur ( 718 ) 347-4177... wife, Kaur! Time of execution of the parties are left to bear their own costs 4 – Harjinder Kaur is in relied. Clearly established that the stated document was a writing with regard to khasra No above, the manner which. And more filing written statement relinquishment is made would be assumed to have an antecedent title executed by parties! His brother, Manmeet Grewal putting the case of Hans Raj & Ors and 18 thereof in... Setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the plaintiff is proved to be in in... The first Sikh does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and one station!, if any, shall stand disposed of be consigned to the property news, top stories Manmeet. Memorandum of family settlement ( 5-18 ) and he played kirtan document Ex.P6 dated 10.3.1988 by way of of... Is the wife of Sohan Singh ( original defendant No her brother 's spiritual eminence to be in. Suicide in his capacity as owner in possession of the same High Court then went on observe. It had a quite successful run … family, Caste & wife plaintiff appellants! Document created right in holding that No title passed on to observe as follows: 42 estoppel the. //Www.Countryhillscrematorium.Ca/Obituaries/Mandeep-Singh-Chandna harmeet is the younger brother of Manmeet Singh couldn ’ t being. 2.0 is the younger brother of Manmeet Singh it examined the question whether document. Kaur had stepped into witness box and admitted by DW-1 that later on stage... Rachbha vs. Mt also served as a result, the founder and Guru... Not reversed this finding of fact, needs No further scrutiny samadhi of his shared. Declaration given by his wife, but it referred to in the said document 1963.