IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:02.02.2026 Satbir Singh …..Appellant Vs.

Raju thr LRs and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain&ffs-appellants assailing the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court (05.12.2023) as well as the learned First Appellate Court (08.05.2025), whereby the suit for declara&on challenging the Will dated 09.07.1985 executed by their grandfather, late Bhim Singh, has been dismissed, and the said findings have been concurrently affirmed.

2. Briefly stated, the plain&ffs ins&tuted the suit seeking a declara&on that the Will dated 09.07.1985 was illegal, null and void, alleging that the property in ques&on was ancestral in nature and that the testator lacked free voli&on and sound disposing mind. Consequen&al reliefs regarding muta&on and subsequent transfers were also claimed.

3. The defendants contested the suit, asser&ng that the property was the self-acquired property of the testator, that the Will was duly executed and registered, and that the beneficiaries had been serving the testator in his old age. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by limita&on.

4. Upon apprecia&on of the pleadings and evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plain&ffs failed to establish the ancestral character of the property; that the Will stood duly proved in accordance with law, and that the suit was barred by limita&on.

5. The First Appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the en&re evidence, affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Courts below have misread the evidence, ignored suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, and failed to appreciate that the property was ancestral, thereby rendering the Will invalid. It is urged that substan&al ques&ons of law arise for considera&on.

7. It is trite law that the jurisdic&on of this Court under Sec&on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan&al ques&ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact, arrived at aAer apprecia&on of evidence, are not to be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffering from a manifest error of law.

8. Both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the Will dated 09.07.1985 is a registered document and stands duly proved. The evidence on record establishes the thumb impression/signature of the testator and the factum of registra&on. The presump&on aCached to a registered Will, par&cularly one more than thirty years old, has been rightly invoked.

9. The appellants failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish that the testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind or that the Will was the result of fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Mere exclusion of some heirs, by itself, does not cons&tute a suspicious circumstance, especially when the Will contains reasons for such disposi&on.

10. The Courts below have correctly held that the alleged suspicious circumstances were neither pleaded with specificity nor proved by reliable evidence.

11. The plea that the property was ancestral has also been concurrently nega&ved. The plain&ffs failed to prove that the property devolved upon the testator from his father, grandfather, or great-

grandfather so as to cons&tute ancestral property in the strict legal sense.

12. Revenue entries, sale deeds, and muta&ons relied upon by the plain&ffs do not establish the necessary nexus to prove ancestral character. On the contrary, the evidence supports the conclusion that the property was self-acquired or separately held by the testator, en&tling him to dispose of the same by Will.

13. S&ll further, the Will was executed in the year 1985 and the muta&on thereon was sanc&oned in 1986. The plain&ffs, admiCedly, aCained ma