IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :06.04.2026 RAM PARKASH ... APPELLANT VERSUS MAYA CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant-defendant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.08.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff–respondents against the dismissal of their suit for declaration vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.1994 passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Bahadurgarh, was allowed and the suit for declaration filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed by the First Appellate Court.

2. The respondents-plaintiffs, in their suit for declaration claimed share in the estate of Ganga Sahai, who had died intestate without leaving any Class-I heirs. It was the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that they are the real brothers of the deceased Ganga Sahai and, being Class-II heirs, are entitled to succeed to his estate; therefore, they claimed themselves to be joint owners in possession of the suit land. It was further asserted that the suit property was ancestral in nature and that Ganga Sahai had no right to execute a Will in respect of the same; consequently, they sought a declaration of ownership over the suit land owned by Ganga Sahai.

3. The appellant-defendant contested the suit and, in the written statement, raised various preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. He further pleaded that Ganga Sahai had been residing with him and was being looked after by him, and out of love and affection, Ganga Sahai executed an unregistered Will dated 14.01.1989 in his favour. It was also pleaded that at the time of execution of the Will on 14.01.1989, Ganga Sahai was physically and mentally fit, in a sound disposing state of mind, and hale and hearty. However, subsequently, in April 1989, he fell ill and ultimately died in the hospital on 18.04.1989 due to cardio-respiratory arrest. On this basis, the appellant-defendant claimed the entire estate of Ganga Sahai by virtue of the Will dated 14.01.1989. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the disputed property, as alleged in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed for?

OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4-A. Whether deceased Ganga Sahai executed a valid will in favour of the defendant dated 14.1.89 as alleged ? OPD.

5. Relief.

5. The learned trial Court had duly accepted the Will and dismissed the suit preferred by the plaintiffs–respondents. However, the learned First Appellate Court concluded that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, could not be relied upon. Accordingly, it set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit preferred by the respondents–plaintiffs.

6. In the present case, the dispute is as regards to validity of the Will dated 14.01.1989, i.e., whether the same is valid or liable to be rejected, as held by the First Appellate Court.

7. The following facts between the parties stand duly established from the pleadings as well as the evidence:

1. Ganga Sahai was about more than 80 years of age at the time of his death.

2. The Will (Ex. D-1) was executed by him on 14.01.1989.

3. He was admitted to the hospital on 01.04.1989 and died on

18.04.1989.

4. As per the death certificate (Ex. P-3), the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest.

5. The thumb impressions of Ganga Sahai on the Will were duly compared with his admitted signatures/thumb impressions on a registered mortgage deed executed by him. As per the handwriting and fingerprints expert (DW-7), the thumb impressio