The First Appellate Court erred by remanding the case without reversing the Trial Court's critical findings on the validity of the Will, which should have been proven by the beneficiaries.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’) whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Sri Muktsar Sahib has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the learned Trial Court for its fresh adjudication.

[2]. In the present case, the dispute pertains to the estate of deceased Jagmohan Singh, who allegedly executed a registered Will dated 28.03.2017 in favour of his widow Surinder Kaur, son Kanwarbir Singh and grandson Damanbir Singh. The appellants herein being plaintiffs (widow and daughter of the testator) filed a suit for declaration qua the estate left by deceased Jagmohan Singh by claiming themselves to be co-owners in joint possession of the suit property on the basis of natural succession besides, assailing the Will dated 28.03.2017 as well.

[3]. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 though recorded a positive finding that the Will dated 28.03.2017 executed by deceased Jagmohan Singh was validly proved as per law i.e. in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, however, discarded the same while holding that it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and as such declared it to be null and void and consequently the suit preferred at the instance of the appellants/plaintiffs was partly decreed by holding them to be joint owners in possession of the estate left by the deceased Jagmohan Singh as per natural succession.

[4]. Being aggrieved, respondents/defendants preferred First Appeal, however the same was decided on 13.05.2025 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside and the suit was remanded back for its fresh adjudication primarily for the reason that since the appellants/plaintiffs sought amendment of their plaint so as to allege that the Will dated 28.03.2017 was forged and fabricated, however, the amended plaint did not form part of the record and was, therefore, not considered by the learned Trial Court. Further it was recorded that in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the onus to prove issue No.7-A was wrongly casted upon the appellants/plaintiffs though it related to valid execution of Will which was essentially to be proved by the beneficiaries/respondents.

[5]. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.

[6]. A perusal of the order/judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib shows that the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication upon the suit, without even reversing the specific finding recorded in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs with respect to the Will in question been surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Thus, unless this finding recorded by the learned Trial Court discarding the Will being surrounded by the suspicious circumstances were reversed, the learned First Appellate Court was not empowered to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court so as to remand the matter for its fresh determination. In fact, the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court caused serious prejudice to the rights of the appellants-plaintiffs as certain relevant findings recorded by the lear