AJAIB SINGH vs BHUPINDER SINGH — RSA/132/1994

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 29-Apr-2024

CNR: PHHC010289331994

Filing Number

RSA/132/1994

Filing Date

18-Sep-2008

Registration No

RSA/132/1994

Registration Date

18-Sep-2008

Judge

Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain

Coram

Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain

Bench Type

Single

Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAIB SINGH

    Adv. ALKA SARIN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHUPINDER SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Pankaj JainView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: RSA/132/1994 - Ajaib Singh v. Bhupinder Singh The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding both contested wills invalid due to suspicious circumstances. The plaintiffs (as collateral heirs of deceased Ralla Singh) failed to prove a 1975 will allegedly executed in their favor; the defendant's 1972 registered will was also rejected because the propounder failed to dispel critical suspicious circumstances—including prior litigation where Ralla Singh alleged pressure to execute wills, an interested attesting witness with financial stake, and incorrectly described beneficiary relationships. The court held that mere registration cannot overcome suspicious circumstances without satisfactory explanation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Sep-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/132/1994

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: RSA/132/1994 - Ajaib Singh v. Bhupinder Singh The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding both contested wills invalid due to suspicious circumstances. The plaintiffs (as collateral heirs of deceased Ralla Singh) failed to prove a 1975 will allegedly executed in their favor; the defendant's 1972 registered will was also rejected because the propounder failed to dispel critical suspicious circumstances—including prior litigation where Ralla Singh alleged pressure to execute wills, an interested attesting witness with financial stake, and incorrectly described beneficiary relationships. The court held that mere registration cannot overcome suspicious circumstances without satisfactory explanation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case