Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J
Balwinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Surjit Kaur – Respondent
RSA-4958-2012 | RSA-5792-2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashish Aggarwal, Saket Bhandari
For the Respondents: Ashok Giri

A Will is a solemn document; once its due execution is proven by the scribe and attesting witnesses, it should be upheld unless there are substantial, evidence-backed suspicious circumstances, as minor inconsistencies or an unequal distribution of assets are not sufficient to invalidate the testator's declared intentions.

Headnote:(A) Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63(c) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Will - Execution - Proof - Testator capacity and sound mind - Validity of Will challenged on grounds of suspicious circumstances - Held, Will is a solemn document; courts must not substitute their own perception - Once execution is proved by attesting witnesses and scribe, mere minor discrepancies or family disputes do not invalidate it - Exclusion of some heirs is not suspicious if rational reasons exist for distribution.

(B) Appellate Court - Powers - Interference with findings of fact - Permissible if lower court's decision is based on conjectures, misinterpretation of documentary evidence, or ignoring material evidence - Appellate Court erred in rejecting Will based on assumptions rather than evidence.

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a suit for declaration regarding the estate of a deceased, challenging a Will dated 13.09.1991. The Trial Court upheld the Will as validly executed. The First Appellate Court reversed this finding, citing suspicious circumstances such as the testator's age, use of thumb impressions, and exclusion of certain natural heirs. The defendants challenged this reversal in the current High Court appeal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the execution of the Will was duly proven by the scribe and attesting witnesses. Suspicious circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs were found to be unsubstantiated by medical evidence or specific proof. The court reinforced that registration is not mandatory and that the rational distribution of property described in the Will justified the disposition.

Issues: Whether the Will dated 13.09.1991 was duly executed in a sound disposing state of mind and whether the First Appellate Court correctly identified suspicious circumstances to invalidate the document.

Ratio Decidendi: A Will is a solemn declaration of intent. High Courts should respect the testator’s wishes if due execution is established under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Mere existence of physical illness or choice to provide differently to heirs does not create suspicion if evidence shows the testator was of sound mind, and appellate courts cannot interfere with trial court facts based on mere conjecture. Result : Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the inheritance dispute and procedural history regarding the will. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7)
2. core issue concerning the validity and proof of the contested will. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

It is the some of the defendants’ appeal against reversal. The suit for declaration filed by plaintiffs (respondents N: 1 to 6 herein) was dismissed by the Trial Court on 20.03.2001, but the First Appellate Court, Karnal, vide judgment dated 28.09.2002, allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreed the plaintiffs’

suit.

2. For clarity, the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court. The Trial Court record has been called & examined.

3. The dispute relates to the estate of Chattar Singh, who died on 03.12.1991, leaving behind his widow Jagir Kaur (defendant N: 1), two sons Kulwant Singh (defendant N: 5) and Buta Singh; and four daughters Surjit Kaur (plaintiff N: 1), Rajinder Kaur (plaintiff N: 2), Sukhwinder Kaur (plaintiff N: 3), and Joginder Kaur. Joginder Kaur and Buta Singh had predeceased Chattar Singh. Plaintiffs N: 4 to 6 are legal heirs of deceased daughter Joginder Kaur, whereas Defendants N: 2 to 4 (appellants herein) are legal heirs of deceased son Buta Singh.

4. The plaintiffs i.e., three surviving daughters and the legal heirs of the fourth, claimed inheritance to the estate of Chattar Singh by natural succession, challenging the Will dated 13.09.1991 and the consequent mutation No. 2583 dated 28.09.1992, sanctioned on its basis. The plaintiffs alleged that :  Chattar Singh, aged about 90 years and in poor health, was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of the alleged Will;

 He habitually signed in Punjabi and never used a thumb impression;

 The Will lacks addresses of attesting witnesses and proper property details;

 The Will was not read over to Chattar Singh; and that  The mutation based on it was sanctioned without notice to them.

They further contend that the properties are ancestral and governed by Hindu Law, hence sought declaration that the Will is forged and inoperative. They also prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property.

5.1 The defendants contested the suit. Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 i.e., legal heirs of deceased son Buta Singh of Chattar Singh supported the Will dated 13.09.1991, asserting that it was duly executed by Chattar Singh in his sound state of mind. They contended that he, being semi-illiterate, used both thumb impressions and signatures, and that defendants No. 1 and 5 had already sold their shares.

5.2 Defendants No. 1 and 5 (the widow and surviving son) denied the authenticity of the Will dated 13.09.1991, claiming that on that very date, Chattar Singh was hospitalized. They instead relied upon another Will dated 06.05.1991 registered on 17.05.1991 with Sub Registrar, which they asserted to be his last valid Will executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5 (except defendant No. 2).

5.3 Both sets of defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. After framing issues and evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found that the Will dated 13.09.1991 had been validly executed by Chattar Singh. The Trial Court held that execution was proved by the testimony of the two attesting witnesses and the scribe, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the suspicious circumstances they alleged. On these findings the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 20.01.2001.

7. However, on appeal by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s conclusions. It found the attesting witnesses to be unreliable and held that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, which prevented its valid proof. Accordingly, the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28.09.2002 declared the Will dated 13.09.1991 and the consequent mutation to be illegal and void and directed that the legal heirs of Chattar Singh succeeded to the property by natural succession. Direction was issued for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHDeepak Gupta, JBalwinder Kaur – AppellantVersusSurjit Kaur – RespondentRSA-4958-2012 | RSA-5792-2019

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J
Balwinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Surjit Kaur – Respondent
RSA-4958-2012 | RSA-5792-2019