IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (134 Date of Decision:-17.02.2026 HARJIT KAUR THR DALBIR KAUR … Appellant Versus HARDEV SINGH AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate for the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

CM-2149-C-2026 The application stands allowed in terms of the prayer made therein, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.

Main Appeal

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit instituted by the appellant– plaintiff seeking declaration and claim to a share in the estate of late Satnam Singh was dismissed.

2. The appellant instituted a suit for declaration asserting that her husband, Satnam Singh, had died intestate and that the Will dated 17.10.2007, as well as the mutation sanctioned on the basis thereof, were illegal, null and void. It was specifically pleaded that Satnam Singh had not executed any valid Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No.2, who maintained that the Will in question had been duly and validly executed by Satnam Singh and that the mutation had been rightly sanctioned. Upon the parties being put to trial and after appreciation of the evidence adduced, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the Will and the consequential mutation in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. The appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, affirming the findings of the Trial Court.

4. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, inasmuch as no provision was made for the appellant, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and that the recital in the Will incorrectly recorded the marital status of one of the respondent–defendants.

6. However, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings that the Will stands duly proved in accordance with law by examining both the attesting witnesses, namely, Kuldeep Singh (PW-3) and Amrik Singh (PW-4), who categorically deposed to its execution and attestation. The Will is a duly registered document. The Courts below have further held that mere disinheritance of natural heirs does not, by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance, as the very purpose of executing a Will is to alter the normal course of succession. It has also been concluded that the presence of a beneficiary at the time of execution of the Will does not ipso facto render the transaction suspicious, unless it is established that the beneficiary actively participated in its execution or exercised undue influence over the testator. Additionally, an incorrect recital regarding the marital status of one of the defendants has been found insufficient to invalidate a duly registered Will that stands proved through cogent and reliable evidence. There is nothing wrong or perverse in the findings so recorded. There is no misreading of evidence by Courts below.

6.1. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, which do not suffer from perversity or illegality, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Regular Second Appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed

7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No separate or further orders are required in that regard.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

17.02.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot