Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through Lr - Appellant
Versus
Jagir Kaur (Dead) And Anr. Etc. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 35093510 of 2010
Decided on : 17-07-2025
(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Proof of execution of Will – Onus lies on Propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from mind of Court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on free disposing mind of Testator – Only when Propounder dispels suspicious circumstances and satisfies conscience of Court that Testator had duly executed Will out of his free volition without coercion or undue influence, would Will be accepted as genuine – When suspicious circumstances exist and have not been repelled to satisfaction of Court, Court would not be justified in holding that Will is genuine since signatures have been duly proved and Will is registered one. (Paras 11 and 13)
(B) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Will – Disinheritance of wife of Testator – Suspicious circumstance – When unusual features appear in a Will or unnatural circumstances surround its execution, Court must undertake close scrutiny and make overall assessment of unusual circumstances before accepting Will – Deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because whole idea behind execution of Will is to interfere with normal line of succession – However, prudence requires reason for denying benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and absence of it, though not invalidating Will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion – Non-mention of status of wife or reason for her disinheritance in Will ought not to be examined in insolation but in light of all attending circumstances of case – Unusual omission to mention very existence of his wife in Will, gives rise to serious doubt that Will was executed as per dictates of appellant and is not ‘free will’ of Testator – Concurrent findings of Courts below affirmed. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009 passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.837 of 1996 and R.S.A. No.958 of 1996 setting aside concurrent findings of Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declaring the 1st respondent as the owner and in possession of the suit land.
Findings of Court:
No evidence was led to show whether the quantum of money said to be settled in favour of 1st respondent was reasonable and would satisfy the conscience of a man of ordinary prudence with regard to her complete expungement in the Will.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. The appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.837 of 1996 and R.S.A. No.958 of 1996 setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declaring the 1st respondent as the owner and in possession of the suit land.
Facts
2. One Maya Singh was owner of land measuring 67 kanals 4 marlas in village Sathiala1[Hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”.]. Appellant is the nephew of Maya Singh. 1st respondent is Maya Singh’s wife. Gurpal Singh (hereinafter referred to as 2nd respondent) claimed to be the adopted son of Maya Singh and 1st respondent. Maya Singh died on 10.11.1991. On 27.10.1992, the suit land was mutated in favour of 1st respondent. Apprehending that 1st respondent was taking steps to alienate the property, appellant filed a Suit RBT No. 329/1992 by propounding a Will executed by Maya Singh on 16.05.1991, bequeathing the land to him. In this suit, appellant contended his uncle, Maya Singh was married to one Joginder Kaur who had predeceased him and 1st respondent was not his lawfully wedded wife or 2nd respondent, their adopted son.
3. Whereas respondents filed another suit seeking declaration that 1st respondent is the lawfully wedded wife of Maya Singh and 2nd respondent is their adopted son.
4. Trial Court dismissed the respondents’ suit holding that 2nd respondent was not the adopted son of Maya Singh and decreed the appellant’s suit declaring that the Will dated 16.05.1991 propounded by the latter was genuine and by virtue of the Will, he was the lawful owner of the suit land. However, the Court held 1st respondent is the lawfully wedded wife of Maya Singh.
5. 1st respondent preferred two appeals challenging the dismissal of her suit as well as against the judgment and decree passed in the appellant’s suit. The appeals were disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court”) upholding the judgment and decree passed in the appellant’s suit.
6. Being aggrieved, 1st respondent filed Second Appeals being RSA No.958 of 1996 and RSA No.837 of 1996. The High Court framed the following substantial question of law:
Holding that the suspicious circumstance namely, nonmention of 1st respondent who is the wife of the testator Maya Singh and the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will exposed absence of ‘free disposing mind’ of the testator, High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and held 1st respondent was the owner and was entitled to possession of the suit land.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant is before us.
During the pendency of the appeal, both the appellant and 1st respondent died and have been substituted by their respective legal representatives.
8. The principal issue which falls for consideration is as follows:
Arguments
9. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Senior Counsel argued that the Will is a registered one and its execution has been lawfully proved. Appellant had examined PW2 Surinder Kumar, Scribe of the Will and PW3 Chanan Singh, one of the attesting witnesses. PW2 deposed he scribed the Will at the instance of Maya Singh. It was read over to Maya Singh and the latter had signed in presence of the attesting witnesses Chanan Singh (PW3) and Pesra Singh. PW3 stated he was the attesting witness and the Will was presented before SubRegistrar where it was again read over to the testator. Their evidence could not be discre
Will – When suspicious circumstances exist and have not been repelled to satisfaction of Court, Court would not be justified in holding that Will is genuine since signatures have been duly proved and....
The due execution and attestation of a will, once proven, cannot be nullified by mere suspicion unless substantial evidence of invalidity is presented.
The burden of proof lies with the propounder of a will to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, necessitating judicial satisfaction regarding the will's authenticity.
The propounder of a Will must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution to establish its validity.
Precise compliance with statutory execution and proof requirements for Wills is necessary, especially when involving Pardanashin individuals; the burden of proof lies on those asserting the validity ....
A propounder of a Will must dispel any suspicious circumstances regarding its execution; failure to do so results in denial of probate or Letters of Administration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of legal requirements for proving a Will and the production of sufficient evidence to remove suspicious circumstances, thereby upho....
The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
