[240] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [1] RSA-1160-2014(O&M)

Date of Decision :01.04.2026 Som Nath Bhatia …Appellant Versus Smt. Raj Kumari Bhatia and others ….Respondents [2] RSA-3547-2014(O&M)

Som Nath Bhatia …Appellant Versus Smt. Raj Kumari Bhatia and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate for the appellant(s). (Through V.C.)

Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate Mr. Ram Lal Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Kartikeya Puri, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Defendant No.1 is in appeal.

[2] For the convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position(s) as in the Civil Suit, i.e. appellant as defendant No.1 and respondents as plaintiffs.

[3] The dispute in the present lis relates to the estate left behind by one Tirthi Bai. Defendant No.1 in order to claim the estate left by Tirthi Bai propounded a registered Will (Exhibit DW2/A) dated 13.01.1997, whereby she bequeathed her share in favour of two sons, namely Mangal Sain and Som Nath Bhatia to the exclusion of Jagan Nath @ Jaganlal and daughters, namely Ram Piary and Santosh. Defendant No.1, in order to prove the said Will, examined Harish Kumar, one of the attesting witnesses, as DW3.

[4] Both the Courts below have disbelieved the Will referring to various discrepancies in the document as well as contradictions in the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to prove Ex.DW2/A. Learned Appellate Court, while affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court, observed as under:-

“44. In present case if appellant's claim is accepted then there are three witnesses namely Bheem Sain, Harish Kumar and Bharat Pal Singh, Advocates, If it is believed that she had signed in presence of Bheem Sain, then there is no evidence to prove that it was signed by testator in presence of other witnesses. This witnesses DW3 clearly stated that no person other than those four were present at that time.

So requirement of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act is not fulfilled.

45. It is claimed that registration itself speaks that it has been duly executed. It is also claimed that once it is proved that Will is registered and has been duly executed, then onus shifts upon opposite side i.e. challenger. But this argument cannot be taken to be correct because basic rule is that Will has to be proved by propounder. Whether it is result of fraud or forgery becomes secondary. Due and valid execution has to be proved by propounder and there cannot be substitute to this rule. In Rani Purnima Debi's case (supra) relied upon by plaintiffs, it has been held that mere fact that Will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it.”

[5] Mr. Chadha, counsel for the appellant, has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that a bare perusal of the Will in dispute would reveal that the Scribe, Bharat Pal Singh, Advocate, also signed the document as an attesting witness and his presence stands proved from the testimony of DW3-Harish Kumar. It is contended that in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, examination of only one attesting witness is sufficient to prove due execution of Will. From the testimony of Harish Kumar-DW3, it is evident that the Will stood proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. He submits that the Courts below have completely misread the document by holding that Bharat Pal Singh, Advocate signed merely as a Scribe, whereas bare perusal of the Will makes it clear that Bharat Pal Singh signed as an attesting witness as well. He further submits that the Will in dispute is a registered document. Thus the onus was upon the plaintiffs to dislodge the same by leading cogent evidence. There being no evidence led by the plaintiffs and rebuttal to dislodge the Will, Courts erred in discarding the Will and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

[6] Per contra, Mr. Sukhand