Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1825 of 1987 (O&M)

Reserved on 29th of January, 2026
Pronounced on 27th of April, 2026
Uploaded on 28th of April, 2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

Ajmer Kaur and another ....Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Kaur ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate and
Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate
for the respondent.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Jain, Aryaman Thakur, Kavita Arora
For the Respondents: Naresh Jain

A Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such as the unexplained exclusion of natural heirs and false statements regarding the testator's personal care, requires the propounder to provide cogent and convincing explanations; failure to do so renders the Will invalid, as it must be proven to the satisfaction of the court's judicial conscience.

Headnote:(A) Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Proof of Will - Suspicious circumstances - Test remains of a prudent mind - Onus is on the propounder to remove legitimate suspicions regarding execution - Exclusion of natural heirs without reasons and false claims in the Will regarding the testator's caregiving situation constitute suspicious circumstances - Appellate Court's re-appreciation of evidence on such suspicious features warrants interference.

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit seeking possession of agricultural land left by their husband, who died issueless. The respondent, a niece of the deceased, claimed the estate based on a registered Will. The trial court disbelieved the Will due to suspicious circumstances, including the lack of mention of the plaintiffs and the unclear circumstances surrounding the attestation. The lower appellate court reversed this finding, leading to the present second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The Court held the Will to be shroud in suspicious circumstances. The assertion in the Will that the defendant was taking care of the testator was found to be factually false, as they resided in different districts. The absence of any reason for the exclusion of the two widows and the brother of the testator further deepened the suspicion. The Court restored the trial court's judgment.

Issues: Whether the Will dated 29.09.1981 was proved in accordance with law and whether it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances invalidating its execution.

Ratio Decidendi: When a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is the judicial conscience of the court that must be satisfied. If the propounder fails to offer cogent and convincing explanations for suspicious circumstances—such as the exclusion of natural heirs without reason and false statements within the document—the Will cannot be treated as validly proved.

Result: Appeal allowed; decree of the trial court restored.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Plaintiffs are in second appeal.

For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of the First Instance, i.e., the appellants as plaintiffs and the respondent as defendant.

Plaintiff filed suit seeking possession of the agricultural land left behind by their husband Jaswant Singh.

Defendant is the daughter of Avtar Singh (brother of Jaswant Singh). Thus, two widows of Jaswant Singh are fighting his niece for his estate. Jaswant Singh died issueless. Defendant claims right over inheritance of Jaswant Singh on the basis of a registered WILL dated 29.09.1981 (Exhibit D-1). Issue No.3 was framed qua validity of WILL, Exhibit D-1. In order to prove the WILL, defendant examined scribe Gurcharan Singh (DW-1), Registration Clerk Ved Parkash (DW-2) and one of the attesting witnesses namely Balam Singh as DW-5.

The Court of First Instance disbelieved the WILL propounded by the defendant holding that there is no evidence to prove that the attesting witness Balam Singh, DW-5, knew Jaswant Singh personally. There is no description of the property left by Jaswant Singh in the WILL. Jaswant Singh left two widows who are plaintiffs in the suit. None of them finds mention in the WILL and there is no reason assigned to exclude them from inheritance. The Court of First Instance accordingly held that the WILL being surrounded by suspicious circumstances, cannot be believed and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs granting them decree of possession qua share of Jaswant Singh.

In an appeal preferred by the defendant, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.3 upholding the WILL propounded by the defendant.

Ld. Senior Counsel representing the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. He submits that the Lower Appellate Court erred in reversing well reasoned findings recorded by the Court of the First Instance. There is no mention of plaintiffs in the WILL. No reason has been assigned to exclude them. Thus, the WILL cannot be believed. He submits that so much so, Jaswant Singh did not even mention his real brother Avtar Singh in the WILL. He was resident of village Channu. WILL was executed at Mansa which is about 90 Kilometres away from Channu, even though tehsil complex is situated at Lambi, which is at a distance of 6 Kilometres from village Channu.

He further contends that none of the witnesses was known to the executant Jaswant Singh, yet the Lower Appellate Court has held that it can be read between the lines that the executant was known to Balam Singh, DW-5. The observation made is conjectural and cannot be sustained. In support of his contentions, Ld. Senior Counsel relies upon ratio of law laid down in the case of Jaswinder Kaur vs. Rupinder Kaur, 2023(1) RCR(Civil) 389, B. Venkatamuni vs. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 277, Dhani Ram (died) through LRs.& others vs. Shiv Singh, 2023(4) RCR (Civil) 603 and Bharpur Singh vs. Shamsher Singh, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 826.

Mr. Amit Jain, Ld. Senior Counsel has further drawn attention of this Court to statement suffered by Jaswant Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while being tried as an accused in FIR No.176, dated 13.04.1982 registered at Police Sation Lambi for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act (Exhibit PY). To the question of the Court, he answered that he was living with his wife, who is suffering from Asthma. He submits that once testator in judicial proceedings admitted that he is living with his wife(s), the Lower Appellate Court erred in making out a case in favour of defendant beyond document in dispute.

Per contra, Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate counsel representing the respondent submits that the WILL is a registered document. The same cannot be held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances merely for the reason that the same does not find mention of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81445

Cases Referred (1)