No transfer based on Will: High Court's verdict on property dispute in Chandigarh

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the Chandigarh Housing Board’s order for not transferring the dwelling unit on the basis of a Registered Will executed by the owner.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that a registered Will was executed in favour of the petitioner, Yogul Kapoor, by Munshi Ram, who was the owner of the dwelling unit.

After the death of Munshi Ram on March 15, 2016, the ownership of the property ought to have been transferred in the name of the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents, the Chandigarh Housing Board, have erroneously declined the transfer by relying upon the instructions issued by them on November 12, 2018.

She submits that there is no bar to the transfer of property on the basis of a registered Will as per the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the SLP titled Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on October 11, 2011.

She also submits that a transfer on the basis of a registered Will has been done in the case of one similarly situated person, namely, Ranjit Singh.

However, Gagandeep Singh Wasu, senior Standing Counsel appearing for CHB, justified the decision of the CHB based on the Supreme Court’s order.

After hearing arguments, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal said that the petitioner has sought the transfer of ownership on the basis of a registered Will, but it is apparent from a bare reading of the impugned order dated September 18, 2025, that the registered Will had been executed in favour of the petitioner simultaneously with a registered GPA and is therefore not a valid mode of transfer as per the judgment of the Supreme Court.

It is apt to notice that the transfer in the case of Ranjit Singh had been allowed for the reason that Ranjit Singh was the nephew of the deceased and the other legal heirs of the deceased had furnished affidavits stating that they had ‘no objection’ to the transfer.

In this case, there is no pleading that the petitioner is related to Munshi Ram, who had executed a Will in his favour. Neither the details of the legal heirs of Munshi Ram have been set out in the pleadings nor is there any affidavit of ‘no objection’ to the transfer of the property. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order declining the transfer of ownership. The petition stands dismissed.