##PAGE1##

1 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 08:04:17 :::

RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977

contes(cid:7)ng defendant No.1-Tara Singh (now appellant through his legal

representa(cid:19)ves), and proforma defendant Nos.2 to 5 (now respondent Nos.2

to 5 through their respec(cid:19)ve legal representa(cid:19)ves) are real siblings, being the

children of Smt. Pahdi. Smt. Pahdi owned agricultural land in different villages

situated in District Sirsa (Haryana) as well as District Bathinda (Punjab),

details whereof were men(cid:7)oned in the headnote of the plaint.

4. Plain(cid:6)ff’s Case : The plain(cid:7)ff ins(cid:7)tuted the suit claiming

possession of the suit property on the basis of inheritance by natural

succession, asser(cid:7)ng that all the par(cid:7)es, being children of Smt. Pahdi, were

en(cid:7)tled to equal shares. It was pleaded that defendant No.1–Tara Singh had

set up a forged Will, allegedly executed by Smt. Pahdi in his favour. According

to the plain(cid:7)ff, Smt. Pahdi, being an octogenarian, was incapacitated to

execute any Will and that the document in ques(cid:7)on was the result of fraud

and misrepresenta(cid:7)on. It was further alleged that defendant No.1, in

collusion with the revenue authori(cid:7)es, had succeeded in ge0ng muta(cid:7)ons

sanc(cid:7)oned in his favour on the basis of the said Will, which deserved to be

ignored. Since the defendant failed to acknowledge the plain(cid:7)ff’s claim

despite requests, the suit was filed on 25.05.1985.

5. Defendant’s Stand : Contes(cid:7)ng the suit, defendant No.1–Tara

Singh asserted exclusive ownership of the suit property on the basis of a

registered Will dated 11.01.1968, stated to have been duly scribed by Shri

Kewal Krishan, Advocate, Bathinda, and a:ested by (i) Shri Tej Ram, resident

of Bucho Mandi, (ii) Shri Ram, Municipal Commissioner, Bucho Mandi, and

(iii) Jagannath, also resident of Bucho Mandi. It was pleaded that Smt. Pahdi

was residing with defendant No.1 at Bucho Mandi at the (cid:7)me of execu(cid:7)on of

the Will and that he was looking a>er her. An objec(cid:7)on of estoppel was also

raised on the ground that neither the plain(cid:7)ff nor the proforma defendants

had ever challenged the muta(cid:7)ons sanc(cid:7)oned on the basis of the Will by way

of appeal. All allega(cid:7)ons of forgery, incapacity, and collusion with revenue

authori(cid:7)es were denied, and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

Page 2 of 10

2 of 10

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 08:04:17 :::

RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977

6. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 (proforma defendants) filed a joint wri:en

statement admi0ng the claim of the plain(cid:7)ff.

7. Trial Court Findings : Upon comple(cid:7)on of pleadings, necessary

issues were framed. The par(cid:7)es led their respec(cid:7)ve evidence. Upon

apprecia(cid:7)on thereof, the learned Trial Court held that the Will dated

11.01.1968 (Ex.D1) stood duly proved in accordance with law and that none

of the suspicious circumstances alleged by the plain(cid:7)ff were established.

Consequently, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.12.1989.

8. Appellate Court’s Findings : The First Appellate Court, however,

accepted the appeal preferred by the plain(cid:7)ff and reversed the findings of

the Trial Court. The Appellate Court discarded the Will primarily on the

grounds that the thumb impressions of Smt. Pahdi on the Will were not

proved; that Tara Singh, being a Kanungo/Patwari, could manipulate the

execu(cid:7)on of the Will by producing an impersonator; that Tej Ram was not an

a:es(cid:7)ng witness as per his tes(cid:7)mony and thus, none of the a:es(cid:7)ng

witnesses had been examined; that the scribe, Shri Kewal Krishan, Advocate,

was not a regular deed writer and did not personally know Smt. Pahdi; that

the Will was not registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar but at the house

of Tara Singh, without proof of any applica(cid:7)on under Sec(cid:7)ons 38 and 40 of

the Registra(cid:7)on Act; and that the Will excluded other natural heirs without

an