JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.

1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 1935 of 2015 dated 26th March 2018 whereby it has been held that the Will, subject matter of controversy, allegedly of one Sanjhi Ram, had not been proved, thereby finding that the Lower Appellate Court¹[Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2011, judgment dated 5th September 2014 delivered by The Court of Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur.] had erred in holding otherwise. The said Lower Appellate Court had set aside the decree of the Civil Court²[ Civil Suit No. 282 of 2006, judgment dated 24th February 2011 delivered by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gurdaspur.] which had found that the Will and the subsequent mutation of the properties enumerated therein was bad in law, as the Will was “illegal”, “null” and “void”. The question that falls for our consideration is-

“What do the words “by the direction of the testator” as they appear in Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 mean? Is the term to be interpreted liberally or strictly? Consequently, was the High Court correct in holding, in agreement with the Civil Court, that the Will,