IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of execution of Will – Mere registration of Will would not be sufficient to prove its validity, as its lawful execution necessarily has to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Succession Act, 1925.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. I.A. No. 151091 of 2023 was filed for deletion of the name of deceased appellant No. 2, the widow of Dhani Ram, from the array of parties. This application is ordered as the sons of Dhani Ram and deceased appellant No. 2 have already been brought on record. Registry shall make necessary changes in the cause title before placing this final judgment in the public domain and/or issuing copies thereof.

2. Leela Devi, also referred to as Leela Wati, died on 10.12.1987. Her husband, Sohan Lal, had predeceased her. Dhani Ram, the son of Leela Devi’s brother, claimed that she executed a registered Will bequeathing to him the properties left by late Sohan Lal. Shiv Singh, the son of Sohan Lal’s brother, instituted Civil Suit No. 200/1 of 1990 on the file of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, challenging the Will executed by Leela Devi, under which Dhani Ram claimed entitlement to the properties that originally belonged to Sohan Lal.

3. By judgment dated 30.08.1997, the Trial Court decreed the suit, disbelieving the Will put forth by Dhani Ram. In consequence, the mutation effected by the authorities on the strength of the said Will was also set aside. Shiv Singh was held entitled to a decree of possession, as he was the rightful owner of the suit properties, and Dhani Ram was permanently injuncted from causing interference therewith. Aggrieved thereby, Dhani Ram and the other defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 63-S/13 of 1997 before the learned District Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. By judgment dated 12.05.1998, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. It held that the Will stood proved and that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The suit filed by Shiv Singh was accordingly dismissed with costs.

4. Thereupon, Shiv Singh filed Regular Second Appeal No. 398 of 1998 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The second appeal was allowed by the High Court, vide judgment dated 18.03.2009, restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by this turn of events, Dhani Ram filed this appeal by special leave.

5. By order dated 30.07.2009, this Court stayed the operation and implementation of the judgment under appeal.

6. Admitted facts, to the extent relevant, may now be taken note of. Sohan Lal and his brother, Devi Ram, succeeded to the ancestral properties left by their father, Giridhari Lal. Sohan Lal had no issues, though it is stated that he had two wives, Leela Devi and Draupadi. The existence and status of Draupadi is disputed but it is of no consequence presently. Devi Ram had two sons, Balbir Singh and Shiv Singh, viz. the respondent herein, who had filed the suit. Balbir Singh died on 26.04.1985. Sohan Lal died intestate and before his death, so did Draupadi, supposedly one of his wives. Therefore, Leela Devi alone inherited Sohan Lal’s share in the ancestral properties by intestate succession. In the ordinary course, if Leela Devi had also died intestate, Shiv Singh, being the sole legal heir of her husband, would have succeeded to the properties under Section 15(1)(b) and Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1956’). However, Dhani Ram, the son of Leela Devi’s brother, claimed the said properties under the Will allegedly executed by Leela Devi on 27.10.1987, which was registered thereafter on 03.11.1987. On the strength thereof, Dhani Ram also got his name mutated in the records in relation to these properties. Having come to know of the same, Shiv Singh initiated the subject litigation and ultimately succeeded before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

7. The case, therefore, turns upon the Will said to have been executed by Leela Devi. If the said Will is found to be legal and valid, Dhani Ram would succeed to Sohal Lal’s properties. If not, Shiv Singh would be the successor to these properties under Section 15 of the Act of 1956.

8. Before the Trial Court, Shiv Singh examined himself as PW