Kesar Singh vs Surat Ram - 2026 Supreme(HP) 549

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Will - Onus is on the propounder to prove due execution and dispel all suspicious circumstances to satisfy the judicial conscience. Suspicious circumstances, such as material contradictions in witness testimonies or unexplained non-registration, make the propounder's burden heavier. (Paras 14-15)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope is limited to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution of a Will cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence in a second appeal is impermissible. (Paras 24-31)

(C) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 387 - Succession Certificate - Proceedings are summary in nature and any decision therein does not bar the trial of the same question in a subsequent suit, thus not operating as res judicata. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction based on an unregistered Will executed by their uncle. Defendants contested the Will's validity. Lower courts dismissed the suit, finding the Will suspicious due to material contradictions in witness statements, the selection of witnesses from different villages, and a report from a handwriting expert indicating a discrepancy in signatures.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It held that the handwriting expert's findings corroborated the suspicions raised by the testimony. The court also found that the prior grant of a succession certificate had no binding effect on the civil suit.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the lower courts misread the evidence and expert reports regarding the Will's execution and whether a succession certificate operates as res judicata in a suit for declaration of ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure is restricted to substantial questions of law and cannot be used to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse. In cases of Wills, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions. Since the lower courts found cumulative contradictions and relied on expert evidence, their findings were not perverse. Additionally, succession certificate proceedings are summary and do not finally decide substantive rights.

Result: The present appeal fails and is dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Will propounded by plaintiffs; execution surrounded by suspicious circumstances; concurrent findings against propounders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Appellant contended will properly executed; respondent argued suspicious circumstances not removed. (Para 11 , 12 )

3. Court found contradictions in witness testimonies, opinion of handwriting expert, and upheld concurrent findings. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 34 )

4. Propounder must remove suspicious circumstances; concurrent findings of fact binding in second appeal unless perverse. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )

5. Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings upheld. (Para 35 )

6. What are the principles for proving a Will when suspicious circumstances exist?

Propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions; court must be satisfied of due execution and free will of testator. (Para 14 , 15 )

7. Can the High Court in second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact on execution of a Will?

No, unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence; mere reappreciation of evidence not allowed. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )

8. Does a grant of succession certificate operate as res judicata regarding validity of a Will?

No, under Section 387 of Indian Succession Act, decision in succession proceedings does not bar trial of same question in a suit. (Para 32 , 33 )

9. What is the evidentiary value of a handwriting expert's opinion in proving a Will?

It is opinion evidence; can corroborate suspicion but not conclusive; here it confirmed suspicious circumstances. (Para 23 )

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti at Kullu (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint based on the Will dated 10.08.2000 executed by Dharam Chand in their favour, and mutation No. 9196 dated 29.01.2003 was null and void. A consequential relief for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs was also sought. It was asserted that Dharam Chand was the owner in possession of the suit land. He was the real uncle of the plaintiffs. He was unmarried and had love and affection for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got him treated at various places. They also rendered services to the deceased. He executed a Will on 10.08.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had applied for the succession certificate regarding the debt and security of the deceased, which was issued in their favour. The defendants claimed to be the legal heirs of the deceased and interfered with the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession. They were requested not to do so, but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objection regarding lack of locus standi, the plaintiffs being estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct, the suit not being properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction and the plaintiffs being out of possession. It was admitted that Dharam Chand was the owner of the suit land. It was asserted that Dharam Chand was unmarried and he was serving as a pharmacist in a veterinary hospital, Kullu. He also remained posted at various places. It was specifically denied that the plaintiffs had ever served Dharam Chand or got him treated at various places. It was asserted that Dharam Chand used to reside with Surat Ram, father of defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 looked after the estate of the deceased during his lifetime. He had not executed any Will in the plaintiffs’ favour. The defendants filed an appeal against the grant of the succession certificate. The suit was filed without any cause of action. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 13.04.2004:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land as claimed? OP

4. Whether late Shri Dharam Chand alias Dine Ram executed a valid Will dated 10.08.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged. If so, its effect? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiffs have the locus standi to sue? OPP

7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

9. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD

10. Relief.

6. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence and plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 Kesar Singh (PW1), Bhole Ram (PW2), Om Prakash (PW3), Ram Lal Bodh (PW4), Anju (PW5), Baldev Krishan (P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(HP) 549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Kesar Singh & Another - Appellant
Versus
Surat Ram & Ors. - Respondent
RSA No. 574 of 2007
Decided On : 13-08-2026

Concurrent findings of fact regarding a Will's execution cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless perverse. The propounder must dispel all suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, summary proceedings for a succession certificate do not operate as res judicata in civil suits for ownership.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. What are the principles for proving a Will when suspicious circumstances exist?

7. Can the High Court in second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact on execution of a Will?

8. Does a grant of succession certificate operate as res judicata regarding validity of a Will?

9. What is the evidentiary value of a handwriting expert's opinion in proving a Will?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(HP) 549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, J.Kesar Singh & Another - AppellantVersusSurat Ram & Ors. - RespondentRSA No. 574 of 2007Decided On : 13-08-2026

Concurrent findings of fact regarding a Will's execution cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless perverse. The propounder must dispel all suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, summary proceedings for a succession certificate do not operate as res judicata in civil suits for ownership.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. What are the principles for proving a Will when suspicious circumstances exist?

7. Can the High Court in second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact on execution of a Will?

8. Does a grant of succession certificate operate as res judicata regarding validity of a Will?

9. What is the evidentiary value of a handwriting expert's opinion in proving a Will?

Cases Referred (23)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Kesar Singh & Another - Appellant
Versus
Surat Ram & Ors. - Respondent
RSA No. 574 of 2007
Decided On : 13-08-2026