Where a First Appellate Court rejects a Will solely on conjecture, ignoring consistent attesting witness testimony and lacking material evidence of suspicion, the High Court can restore the Trial Court’s findings if due execution is proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. This judgment upholds and clarifies existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent, setting a binding authority for all subordinate courts in will dispute litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/4273/2002 of (O&M) BALWINDER KARU AND ORS. Vs SURJIT KAUR AND ORS. |
| CNR | PHHC010243812002 |
| Date of Registration | 28-10-2002 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single (MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules First Appellate Court; Restores Trial Court judgment |
| Type of Law | Civil – Law relating to Wills, Indian Succession Act, Evidence Act, Civil Procedure Code |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The due execution of a Will, if proved through consistent evidence of attesting witnesses and scribe as per statutory requirements, cannot be lightly discarded by solely relying on conjectures, minor discrepancies, or unsubstantiated suspicions. The presence of suspicious circumstances must be supported by concrete evidence and not mere imagination or conjecture. The High Court is empowered to interfere with First Appellate Court findings if they ignore material evidence, misinterpret the law, or rely on non-evidence or misapprehensions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The burden of proving a Will rests on the propounder, but once attestation and due execution are proved by reliable attesting witnesses and scribe, and there is no credible evidence of unsoundness or undue influence, minor discrepancies or registration are immaterial. Suspicion must be real and based on material evidence, not conjecture. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Dispute over estate of Chattar Singh, who died in 1991, leaving a Will dated 13.09.1991; plaintiffs (daughters/legal heirs) challenged the Will as forged and surrounded by suspicious circumstances; Trial Court found the Will duly executed; First Appellate Court reversed, finding suspicious circumstances; Appellate court order challenged before High Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | First Appellate Court judgment in this case |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that mere conjecture or minor inconsistencies are insufficient to discard a will if attesting witnesses and scribe consistently prove due execution.
- Establishes that suspicious circumstances must be specifically pleaded and substantiated by material evidence placed to relevant witnesses.
- High Courts have jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact by First Appellate Courts if such findings are perverse, ignore material evidence, or are based on erroneous application of law.
- Non-registration of a will and minor description errors do not constitute suspicious circumstances if the will is otherwise duly proved.
- Reaffirms that disinheritance of some heirs with reasons recorded in the will does not ipso facto make the will suspicious.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the sequence of findings: The Trial Court had, after evaluating the evidence of the scribe and both attesting witnesses, accepted the will as duly proved; the First Appellate Court reversed, relying on conjecture and alleged suspicious circumstances.
- The Court analysed the testimony and held that the evidence of the scribe and both attesting witnesses (including one examined as a rebuttal witness by the plaintiffs) was consistent and credible, meeting the requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- The legal standards for proof of a will, suspicious circumstances, and the burden on the propounder versus challengers were discussed in light of Supreme Court judgments, particularly Rani Purnima Devi and H. Venkatachala Iyengar.
- The High Court clarified that mere old age, physical infirmity, or use of thumb impression for execution does not, by itself, cast suspicion on the testamentary capacity unless supported by medical or documentary evidence, which was lacking.
- Minor discrepancies, such as slight errors in description of heirs or property, or non-registration of will, were held immaterial as per precedent.
- The reasons for exclusion of certain heirs, as provided in the will, were found rational and recorded from evidence.
- Followed prior High Court precedent (Lakhpat Rai, Sukhdev Singh) that interference is warranted when appellate findings are based on non-evidence, omission of material evidence, or misapplication of the law.
- The Court found the reversal by the First Appellate Court unsustainable for being unsupported by credible material and restored the Trial Court’s judgment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants – Defendants 2–4):
- Argued that the First Appellate Court erred in disbelieving the attesting witnesses, whose testimonies, corroborated by the scribe, established the due execution of the will.
- Asserted that the findings of suspicious circumstances were based on conjectures and disregarded competent evidence.
- Submitted that neither exclusion of natural heirs nor the lack of registration was, in law, sufficient to create valid suspicion.
- Prayed for restoration of the Trial Court’s findings.
Respondent (Plaintiffs, Defendants 1 & 5):
- Submitted that the First Appellate Court provided cogent reasons to reject the will.
- Contended that there were suspicious circumstances and the High Court should not interfere with findings of fact.
- Sought dismissal of the second appeal and upholding of appellate findings.
Factual Background
The dispute concerned inheritance of the estate of Chattar Singh, who died in 1991 at around 90 years of age. The plaintiffs, comprising three surviving daughters and legal heirs of a predeceased daughter, challenged a will dated 13.09.1991, allegedly executed by Chattar Singh. They contended the will was forged, made when the testator was of unsound mind, and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The contesting defendants, heirs of the predeceased son, supported the will, arguing it was executed properly with attesting witnesses and scribe present. The Trial Court found due execution proved; the First Appellate Court reversed, finding suspicious circumstances and discarding the will. The defendants then appealed to the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Requires proof of due execution and attestation of will by credible witnesses.
- Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Mandates examination of at least one attesting witness to prove execution of wills.
- The Court interpreted these provisions to require not only formal attestation but consistency and credibility in witness testimony.
- Registration of will is not mandatory; its absence, absent other evidence, does not create suspicion.
- Section 100 CPC: High Court’s interference in Second Appeal justified if lower courts ignore material evidence or misapply legal standards.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court and High Court law regarding proof and scrutiny of wills is affirmed and clarified.