RAMESH CHAND vs Reshamu Devi DECEASED THROUGH LR RAM DEI AND OTHERS

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Execution of Will - Suspicious circumstances - Scope of Second Appeal - The propounder of a Will must prove due execution and dispel all legitimate suspicions to satisfy the judicial conscience (Paras 15, 16) - Suspicious circumstances may include an unfair disposition of property, a feeble mind, or the propounder taking a leading part in the making of the Will (Para 15) - Absence of reasons for disinheriting natural heirs, while not automatically invalidating a Will, shrouds the disposition with suspicion (Para 20).

(B) Second Appeal - Scope - High Court cannot interfere with a pure finding of fact based on evidence unless such finding is perverse or based on assumptions and surmises (Para 27).

Facts of the case:
A suit for possession of land was filed by legal heirs against a beneficiary who claimed ownership based on a Will. The trial and appellate courts found the Will suspicious because the original document was not produced, no reasons were given for disinheriting other legal heirs, an attesting witness was related to the beneficiary, and the testator was bedridden for several years prior to death, making the execution and registration of the Will improbable.

Findings of Court:
The lower courts concurrently held that the execution and attestation of the Will were shrouded in suspicious circumstances, and the propounder failed to provide a cogent explanation to remove these doubts.

Issues: The main issue was whether the lower courts misread and misappreciated the evidence regarding the execution of the Will.

Ratio Decidendi: When a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the initial onus on the propounder is heavier to satisfy the court's conscience. The combined factors of the testator's poor health, the relation of the witness to the beneficiary, and the silence on the reasons for disinheritance constituted real and valid suspicions. Since these were pure findings of fact affirmed by two courts, they are not subject to interference in a second appeal.

Result: The present appeal fails, and it is dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for possession of land — Will propounded by defendant — Execution challenged on ground of suspicious circumstances. (Para 2 , 3 )

2. Appellant argued lower courts misappreciated evidence; respondent submitted concurrent findings should not be interfered with. (Para 12 , 13 )

3. Appeal dismissed — Judgments of lower courts affirmed — No interference with concurrent findings on will. (Para 30 , 31 )

4. How must a will be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act?

At least one attesting witness must be examined; the will must be signed by testator and attested by two witnesses; suspicious circumstances impose a heavier onus on the propounder to dispel doubt. (Para 15 , 16 , 27 )

5. What constitutes a suspicious circumstance in the execution of a will?

Factors include shaky signature, feeble mind, unfair disposition, propounder taking leading part, absence of reason for disinheriting natural heirs, and testator's physical incapacity. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 )

6. What is the effect of the testator being bedridden on the validity of a will?

If the testator was bedridden and dependent on the beneficiary for years, his capacity to execute a will becomes doubtful and constitutes a suspicious circumstance. (Para 26 , 27 )

7. Can the High Court in a second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a will?

No, unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence; it is impermissible to reassess evidence in second appeal on a pure finding of fact. (Para 29 )

2026:HHC:17170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No. 484 of 2000

Reserved on: 23.03.2006

Date of Decision: 15.05.2026

Ramesh Chand ...Appellant Versus o Reshamu Devi (since deceased) through LRs & others t ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

For the appellant : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.

hFor the respondents : Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a), 1(b), 2, 6(a) to g 6(c) Respondents No. 3(a) to 3(d), 7(a) (i) to 7(a) (iii) & 7(b)(i) and 7(b)(ii) H stand proceeded against ex parte.

None for the remaining respondents.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 16.09.1993, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (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 uplaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking possession of the suit land mentioned in the headnote of the plaint. It was asserted that the suit land was recorded in the name of Mangtu, son of Chhotu, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. He died on . The pedigree table of the parties is as follows:

Pedigree Table

3. Defendant No.1 propounded a Will stated to have been executed by Mangtu. Mangtu was not in his sound disposing state of mind for three years before his death. He was aged 79-80 years at the time of his death. The plaintiff and pro forma defendants are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

4. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement by defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of locus-standi, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiffs being estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that Mangat Ram was the owner in possession of the suit land and he had expired. It was asserted that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 had shifted to Uttar Pradesh about 40-50 years ago. They purchased property and never visited the village. The defendants looked after Mangat Ram and provided him with all the amenities of life. Mangat Ram executed a Will on 4.10.1985 in favour of defendant No.1, his grandson, in his sound disposing state of mind. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the estate of the deceased. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. A separate written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs was filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 5.

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

The following issues were framed on 08.04.1991

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, and the plaintiffs have no cause of action as alleged? OPD.

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

5. Whether Sh. Mangat Ram deceased executed a valid Will on 04.10.1985 in favour of defendant No.1, if so its effect?OPD

6. If issue No.5 is proved in affirmative, whether the said will is the result of fraud, undue influence, etc., as alleged?OPP.

7. Relief.

7. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and plaintiff No. 1 examined herself (PW-1), Geeta Devi (PW-2), Joginder Pal (PW-3), Dhari Ram (PW-4) and Ishwar Dass (PW-5). Defendants examined defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
RAMESH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
Reshamu Devi DECEASED THROUGH LR RAM DEI AND OTHERS – Respondent
RSA/484/2000

A propounder must dispel all suspicious circumstances, such as testator incapacity or unexplained disinheritance of natural heirs, to satisfy the court's conscience. Pure findings of fact regarding Will execution by two lower courts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are perverse.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. How must a will be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act?

5. What constitutes a suspicious circumstance in the execution of a will?

6. What is the effect of the testator being bedridden on the validity of a will?

7. Can the High Court in a second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a will?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLARAMESH CHAND – AppellantVersusReshamu Devi DECEASED THROUGH LR RAM DEI AND OTHERS – RespondentRSA/484/2000

A propounder must dispel all suspicious circumstances, such as testator incapacity or unexplained disinheritance of natural heirs, to satisfy the court's conscience. Pure findings of fact regarding Will execution by two lower courts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are perverse.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. How must a will be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act?

5. What constitutes a suspicious circumstance in the execution of a will?

6. What is the effect of the testator being bedridden on the validity of a will?

7. Can the High Court in a second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a will?

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
RAMESH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
Reshamu Devi DECEASED THROUGH LR RAM DEI AND OTHERS – Respondent
RSA/484/2000