(O&M) Balwinder Karu and Ors. v. Surjit Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Oct 2025RSA/4273/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chattar Singh estate; Will dated 13.09.1991 (Ex.D1); mutation No. 2583 dated 28.09.1992; proving of Will; suspicious circumstances; attesting witnesses; scribe; thumb impression versus signature; non-registration of Will; exclusion of natural heirs; unequal distribution; Section 63(c) Indian Succession Act 1925; Section 68 Indian Evidence Act 1872; Section 100 CPC; Section 41 Punjab Courts Act; second appeal interference with findings of fact; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Deepak Gupta J; 28.10.2025; RSA No. 4273 of 2002(O&M); Balwinder Kaur v. Surjit Kaur; Karnal; Nilokheri; village Bairsal.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside; Trial Court's judgment and decree upholding the validity of the Will dated 13.09.1991 restored; parties left to bear their own costs. ¶125

(O&M) Balwinder Karu and Ors. Vs Surjit… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside; Trial Court's judgment and decree upholding the validity of the Will dated 13.09.1991 restored; parties left to bear their own costs.

¶125

Issue for consideration

Whether the Will dated 13.09.1991 executed by Chattar Singh was duly proved and valid in law, and/or whether it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Due execution of the Will dated 13.09.1991 stands duly proved by the consistent testimonies of the scribe (DW1 Balbir Singh) and both attesting witnesses (DW2 Teja Singh and PW3 Tarlok Singh, the latter examined by the plaintiffs themselves in rebuttal and never declared hostile), in accordance with Sections 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶74

Ratio / Principle

Proof of a Will requires examination of at least one attesting witness to show that the testator signed/thumb-marked the Will and that he and the other witness attested it in his presence; the evidence in this case satisfied these statutory requirements.

¶75

Key takeaways

Interference with a Will on the ground of suspicious circumstances is warranted only when genuine and substantial grounds exist; such circumstances must be specifically put to the attesting witnesses or scribe for explanation and cannot rest on mere conjecture or imagination.ratio¶80
Before declaring a Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances the Court must place itself in the position of the testator and objectively assess whether the circumstances genuinely cast doubt on the voluntariness or authenticity of the document; Wills must not be labelled suspicious casually and the Court must decide solely on evidence.ratio¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J.), RSA No. 4273 of 2002(O&M), pronounced 28.10.2025 — Regular Second Appeal by defendants Nos. 2-4 (legal heirs of predeceased son Buta Singh) against the First Appellate Court, Karnal's reversal, which had declared the unregistered Will dated 13.09.1991 of Chattar Singh (d. 03.12.1991, aged ~80-90) and mutation No. 2583 dated 28.09.1992 illegal and void and decreed inheritance to his three daughters and the heirs of a fourth. Held: (i) execution stood duly proved by the scribe (DW1 Balbir Singh, document writer since 1981) and both attesting witnesses — DW2 Teja Singh (village Nambardar living 500-600 yards away) and Tarlok Singh, whom the plaintiffs themselves examined as PW3 in rebuttal and never declared hostile — satisfying Sections 63(c) Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) each alleged suspicious circumstance fails: neither Dr. Charalia/Karnalia nor any hospital record was produced, and illness or old age per se raises no doubt of testamentary capacity; age/spectacle/hearing-aid discrepancies are minor lapses of memory; the thumb impression is unobjectionable for a semi-literate testator (science of fingerprints exact — Nihal Kaur relied on), no fingerprint/handwriting expert was sought, and once execution is proved the onus shifts to the objector; registration is optional (two copies prepared showed intent to register) — Dhani Ram relied on; misnamed daughters (Sukhwant/Rajwant) and omission of a predeceased wife are inconsequential where identity is clear; exclusion of natural heirs carried recorded, rational reasons (earlier transfers of 41K-18M, 31K-15M, 15K-11M; balance 48K-19M to the resident daughter-in-law); suspicious circumstances must be real, specific, evidence-based and put to the witnesses, not conjectural; (iii) Taranjeet Singh distinguished — unlike that case, this Will expressly cancelled two earlier Wills; (iv) High Court interference is warranted where findings suffer from wrong inferences by erroneous application of law, misinterpretation/inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence (exceptions culled in Lakhpat Rai and Sukhdev Singh relied on; Section 100 CPC and Section 41 Punjab Courts Act invoked). Appeal allowed; First Appellate Court's judgment and decree set aside; Trial Court's judgment restored; parties to bear own costs.

¶1

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶2

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No. 4273 of 2002(O&M) Reserved on: 15.10.2025 Pronounced on: 28.10.2025

¶4

Balwinder Kaur & Ors.

… Appellants

Versus

Surjit Kaur & O r s.

…Responde n ts

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Argued by:- M r . Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advo c ate With Mr. Saket Bhandari, Advocat e fo r the appellants (defendants N: 2 to 4 before trial court).

¶11

M r . Ashok Giri, Advocate fo r the respondents (plaintiffs, an d defendants N: 1 & 5 before trial co u rt.

¶12

¶13

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶14

It is the some of the defendants’ app e al against reversal. The suit f or declaration file d by plaintiffs (respondents N: 1 to 6 herein) was dismissed by the Trial Court on 2 0.03.2001, but the First Appellate Court, Karnal, vide judgm e nt dated 28.09.20 0 2, allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreed the plainti f fs’ suit.

¶15

Fo r clarity, the parties are referre d to by their status before the T r ial Court. The Trial Court record has been called & examined.

¶16

Th e dispute relates to the estat e of Chattar Singh, who died o n 03.12.1991, le a ving behind his widow Jagir K aur (defendant N: 1), two s o ns Kulwant Singh (defendant N: 5) and Buta Sin g h; and four daughters Surjit K a ur (plaintiff N: 1), R ajinder Kaur (plaintiff N: 2), Sukhwinder Kaur (plaintiff N: 3) , and Joginder Kaur. Joginder Kaur and Buta Singh had predeceased Chattar Sin g h. Plaintiffs N: 4 t o 6 are legal heirs of deceased daughter Joginder Kaur, wher e as

¶17

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page No. 1 of 1 4

¶19

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶20

Defendants N: 2 to 4 (appellants herein) are legal heirs of deceased son B u ta Singh.

¶21

Th e plaintiffs i.e., three surviving daughters and the legal heirs of the fourth, cl a imed inheritance to the est a te of Chattar Singh by natu succession, challenging the Will dated 13.09.1 9 91 and the consequent mutati o n No. 2583 dated 28.09.1992, sanctioned on its b asis. The plaintiffs alleged that :

¶22

Chattar S ingh, aged about 90 years and i n poor health, was not in a sound disposin g state of mind at the time of th e alleged Will;

¶23

He habit u ally signed in Punjabi and neve r used a thumb impression;

¶24

The Will lacks addresses of attesting witnesses and proper prope r details;

¶25

The Will w as not read over to Chattar Si n gh; and that

¶26

The mut a tion based on it was sanctione d without notice to them.

¶27

They further c o ntend that the properties are ancestral and governed by Hin d u Law, hence so u ght declaration that the Will is forged and inoperative. They a l so prayed for an injunction to restrain the def e ndants from alienating the s u it property.

¶28

5.1 Th e defendants contested the suit. Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 i.e., legal heirs of d e ceased son Buta Singh of Chat t ar Singh supported the Will dated 13.09.1991, as s erting that it was duly execut e d by Chattar Singh in his sound state of mind. T hey contended that he, bein g semi-illiterate, used both thu m b impressions and signatures, and that defendants No. 1 and 5 had already s o ld their shares.

¶29

5.2 Defendants No. 1 and 5 (the wid o w and surviving son) denied the authenticity of the Will dated 13.09.1991, c laiming that on that very da t e, Chattar Singh w as hospitalized. They instead relied upon another Will dated 06.05.1991 reg i stered 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 (exc e defendant No. 2 ).

¶30

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

Page No. 2 of 1 4

¶32

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶33

5.3 Bo t h sets of defendants prayed fo r dismissal of the suit.

¶34

Af t er framing issues and evaluat i ng the evidence, the Trial Co u rt found that th e Will dated 13.09.1991 had b een validly executed by Chat t ar Singh. The Trial Court held that execution wa s proved by the testimony of the two attesting w itnesses and the scribe, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the s u spicious circumstances they alleged. On these findings the T r ial Court dismisse d the suit on 20.01.2001.

¶35

H o wever, on appeal by the pla i ntiffs, the First Appellate Co u rt reversed the Trial Court’s conclusions. It fou n d the attesting witnesses to be unreliable and held that the Will was surrou n ded by suspicious circumstanc e s, which prevent e d its valid proof. Accordingly, the Appellate Court vide its judgment dat e d 28.09.2002 declared the W ill dated 13.09.1991 and the consequent m u tation to be illegal and void a n d directed that the legal heirs of Chattar Singh s ucceeded to the property by n atural succession. Direction w as issued for corr e ction of revenue records, and defendants were restrained fr o m alienating the suit property.

¶36

Defendants No. 2 to 4 (i.e., l e gal heirs of Buta Singh) have challenged the above reversal before this C o urt. Learned Senior Counsel f or these appellants argues that the Appellate Court erred in disbelieving the attesting witne s ses, who were well-known to t he testator and whose testimo n y, corroborated b y the scribe, established due execution. Ld. Counsel contends that the Appell a te Court relied on conjectures i n discarding competent eviden c e, and that neith e r the exclusion of natural heirs nor the absence of registration is, by itself, suffici e nt to create suspicious circum s tances. He, therefore, prayed f or restoration of t h e Trial Court’s judgment.

¶37

Pe r contra , Ld. Counsel for the r e spondents-plaintiffs submits t h at the First Appellate Court provided cogent reas o ns for rejecting the Will and t h at those findings d o not call for interference. He p rayed for dismissal of the appe a l.

¶38

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Page No. 3 of 1 4

¶40

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶41

Th e Court has considered the su b missions of both parties and h as carefully appraised the record.

¶42

It is undisputed that all parties to the suit are the legal heirs of l a te Chattar Singh, w ho passed away on 03.12.199 1 at the age of about 90 years. The plaintiffs comp r ise his daughters and the legal heirs of a predeceased daught e r, while the defe n dants include his widow, survi v ing son, and the legal heirs of h is deceased son. The plaintiffs claim ownershi p of the suit property by natural succession, wh e reas the defendants assert t h eir right on the basis of the W ill dated 13.09.1 9 91. The plaintiffs allege th a t the said Will is forged a surrounded by suspicious circumstances, whil e the defendants maintain tha t it was duly execu t ed by Chattar Singh in a sound a nd disposing state of mind.

¶43

Th u s, the core issue for determi n ation is whether the Will dated 13.09.1991 ex e cuted by Chattar Singh was duly proved and valid in law,and / or whether it is surrounded by suspicious circums t ances.

¶44

13.1 P W 1 Gurbachan Singh, resident o f village Bairsal, deposed that he was acquainte d with Chattar Singh, who was a bout 90 years old at the time of his death. He s t ated that 3–4 years prior to his death, Chattar Singh had fallen seriously ill and stayed with his son-in-law Sad a Singh in village Bairsal. According to him, 2–4 m o nths before his death, Chatt a r Singh had lost his hearing and eyesight and w a s not in a sound state of mind. He was said to have been treated by one Dr. Charalia (or Dr. Karnalia) at Nil o kheri and to have died in t h at hospital. Durin g cross-examination, PW1 admi t ted that he was brought by Sada Singh husband of one of the daughters of Chattar Singh. He acknowledged t h at Chattar Singh usually resided in Nilokheri with his wife Jagir Kaur, son, daught e r- in-law Balwind e r Kaur, and grandsons, and w o uld only visit Bairsal occasion a lly during family disputes. He also stated that Ch a ttar Singh had been hospitalized for 10–15 days and used a hearing aid for seve r al years.

¶45

13.2 It is noteworthy that neither Dr. Charalia/ Karnalia was examin e d, nor any hospit a l record was produced to subst a ntiate these claims.

¶46

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

Page No. 4 of 1 4

¶48

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶49

13.3 P W 2 Surjeet Kaur, one of the p l aintiffs and daughter of Chat t ar Singh, testified that her father was around 90 y ears old at the time of his dea t h, suffered from w eak eyesight and hearing loss, a nd had taken treatment from D r. Charalia at Nilokheri. She denied that her fath e r had executed any Will, asserting that he used t o sign in Punjabi. During cross- e xamination, she admitted that all daughters wer e married and living with thei r in-laws; that Chattar Singh had spent substantially on their marriages and do w ries; that he resided in Nilokh e ri with his son, d a ughter-in-law, and grandsons; and that both Jagir Kaur (widow) and Kulwant S ingh (son) had already sold their properties. She express ignorance about Chattar Singh’s visits to Bairsal.

¶50

13.4 N o other witnesses were exami n ed on behalf of the plaintiffs in their affirmativ e evidence.

¶51

14.1 D W 1 Balbir Singh, a document wr i ter at Tehsil Nilokheri since 19 8 1, stated that he scribed the Will dated 13.09 . 1991 (Ex.D1) on Chattar Sing h instructions. Af t er reading it and explaining its c ontents, Chattar Singh affixed h is thumb impres s ion in his presence, which w as then attested by Teja Singh (Nambardar) a n d Tarlok Singh. The Will was entered in his register at serial n o. 301, bearing t h umb impressions and signatu r es of the testator and attesting witnesses. He d enied suggestions that Chattar Singh was unwell, hospitalized, or not of sound mind on that date, estimating his age then as 60–65 years.

¶52

14.2 D W 2 Teja Singh, one of the a ttesting witnesses to the W corroborated DW1’s testimony, confirming th a t the Will (Ex.D1) was scribed and read over by B a lbir Singh, and executed by C h attar Singh in their presence. H e affirmed that C h attar Singh was in sound disposing state of mind, could hear and see properly, a nd came alone to the Tehsil office at about 4:30 p.m. on 13.09.1991. He denied that Chattar Singh was h ospitalized or hard of hearing.

¶53

14.3 D W 3 Satpal Singh proved a certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 01.08.19 9 7 (Ex.D2).

¶54

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

Page No. 5 of 1 4

¶56

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶57

14.4 D W 4 Balwinder Kaur, daughter-in-law and one of the beneficiar i es under the Will, deposed that Chattar Singh ow n ed land in village Bairsal but lived in Nilokheri, w h ere he had about six Killas of land at the time of his death. The remaining land had already been transferred by him to his wife, son Kulw a nt Singh, and gra n dsons through a decree. She stated that Chattar Singh lived w i th her after 1983 , was looked after by her, and died at her residence. The Bhog ceremony was also performed at her house . She affirmed that he remained mentally soun d till his death, though he used hearing aids and spectacles. She denied that the Will was forged or executed u n der undue influence. Importan t ly, her cross-examination reveals no suggestion t hat any names or descriptions of the property i n the Will (Ex.D1) were incorrect, or that any beneficiary w as wrongly menti o ned.

¶58

Th e second attesting witness, Ta r lok Singh, was not examined by the defendants during their evidence but was e xamined by the plaintiffs as P W 3 in rebuttal. Co n trary to the plaintiffs’ case, P W 3 supported the defendants and confirmed the due execution of the Will (Ex.D1). He stated that the Will w as executed on 13.09.1991 at about 4:00–4:30 p.m. in the Tehsil office, when Chattar Singh, a ged around 75–80 years, was in sound disposing state of mi n d. He deposed th a t Chattar Singh could hear, w a lk, and understand properly and that he had h imself requested Tarlok Sing h to attest the Will. He furt h mentioned tha t Chattar Singh had told him h e had cancelled the earlier W i lls before executi n g the present one.

¶59

Fr o m the above, it is evident that while the plaintiffs relied on oral testimony alon e , unsupported by medical or d o cumentary evidence to prove the alleged unsou n dness of mind or illness of Chattar Singh, the defenda n ts examined one o f the attesting witnesses and t h e scribe, who consistently proved the due execution of the Will in accordance w ith law. Even the other attesting witness, exami n ed by plaintiffs in rebuttal pro v ed the due execution of the W ill in accordance w ith law

¶60

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

Page No. 6 of 1 4

¶62

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶63

Th o ugh the Trial Court accepted t he Will as duly proved, the First Appellate Cou r t found the witnesses unreli a ble and held that the Will w as surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Th e observations made by the First Appellate Cou r t regarding the validity of th e Will dated 13.09.1991 and to discard it, require careful scrutiny.

¶64

18. Be f ore proceeding further, it will b e useful to take note of the le g al requirement t o prove the legality and validit y of a Will, when under attack. In Rani Purnima Devi vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev, AIR 1962 SC 567 , Hon’ble Supre m e Court held as under:

¶65

“Before w e consider the facts of this cas e it is well to set out the principl es which go v ern the, proving of a will. This was considered b this Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma(AIR 1959 SC 443) . It w as observed in that case that the mode of pr o ving a will did not ordinarily dif f er from that of proving any other document e xcept as to the special requirem e nt of attest a tion prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63 of the Ind i an Successio n Act. The onus of proving the wi l l was on the propounder and in t he absence o f suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will pr o of of testamentary capacity and signature of t he. testator as required by law w as sufficient to discharge the onus. Where , however, there were' suspici o us circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to t he satisfacti o n of the Court before the will c o uld be accepted as genuine. If t he caveats a l leged undue influence, fraud or c oercion, the onus would be on h im to prove the same.”

¶66

In present case, the First Appella t e Court observed that the scribe Balbir Singh (D W 1), was not acquainted with t h e testator and that both attesting witnesses wer e professional persons frequenting the Tehsil office. However, as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the app e llants, these findings are contr a ry to the record.

¶67

a) P W 1 Balbir Singh was a regular d o cument writer, registered in the Tehsil office, Nilokheri since 1981. He stated that although Chattar Singh was n ot personally kno w n to him, but used to frequ e ntly approach him for preparing

¶68

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

Page No. 7 of 1 4

¶70

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶71

documents. H e categorically testified that t h e Will was executed by Chat t ar Singh, who put his thumb impression both on t he Will and on his register. Th e re is no challenge t hat these impressions were no t those of Chattar Singh.

¶72

b) Likewise, DW2 Teja Singh’s tes t imony could not be discarded merely becaus e he happened to be in the T e hsil office. He was a resident of village Nilokhe r i, living within 500–600 yards o f Chattar Singh’s house as testified by him, and al s o served as the Nambardar of the village. His presence in the Tehsil office, therefore, was natural and not su s picious.

¶73

c) P W 3 Tarlok Singh, the other a t testing witness, also offered a reasonable explanation for his presence, stati n g that he had gone there to m e et his counsel in connection with his personal ca s e. His testimony, therefore, co u ld not be brush e d aside. It is particularly no t eworthy that this witness w as examined by t h e plaintiffs themselves and ye t he supported the due executi o n of the Will. The plaintiffs never declared hi m hostile, and hence cannot n o w claim that his s t atement is unreliable.

¶74

d) Th u s, the due execution of the W ill dated 13.09.1991 stands d u ly proved by the c onsistent testimonies of the sc r ibe and both attesting witness e s, in accordance w ith Sections 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the India n Evidence Act, 1872 .

¶75

e) As per settled legal position, proo f of a Will requires examination of at least one of the attesting witnesses to sho w that the testator signed/ thu m b marked the W i ll and that he & other witnes s attested it in his presence. The evidence here s atisfies these statutory require m ents.

¶76

As far as suspicious circumstances noted by the first appellate co u rt are concerned, it may be clarified that in ma t ters relating to a Will, the Co u rt must refrain fr o m imposing its own perception. Interference is warranted o n ly when there e x ist genuine and substantial g r ounds showing that the Will is surrounded b y strong and well-founded suspicious circumstances. Such circumstances m ust be specifically put to the attesting witnesses or the scribe to

¶77

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶78

Page No. 8 of 1 4

¶79

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶80

seek their explanation and cannot rest on m ere conjecture or imaginati o n. Unless a prop e r foundation, supported by evidence, is established to indic a te that the Will is t ainted by suspicion, the Court s hould not intervene.

¶81

A W ill is a solemn document that t akes effect after the death of the testator, and t h e Court should ordinarily respe c t the testator’s wishes unless the propounder fails to prove its due execution, or there are credible reasons to believe that it d oes not reflect the true inten t of the testator. While assessing the credibility o f the attesting witnesses, their testimony must be considered as a whole. With t he passage of time, some laps e of memory is natural, and mi n or inconsistencies should not be treated as fat a l. Each witness perceives eve n ts differently, an d therefore, their oral evidence must be evaluated with care and realism.

¶82

It h as often been observed that W ills are labelled as suspicious i n a casual manner, which is an incorrect approach . The Court must not substitute its own opinion b u t decide solely on the basis of evidence. Before declaring a W ill to be surround e d by suspicious circumstances, the Court must place itself in the position of th e testator and objectively as s ess whether the circumstan c es genuinely cast d oubt on the voluntariness or a u thenticity of the document.

¶83

In present case, the First A p pellate Court noticed cert a in contradictions r egarding the age of Chattar Si n gh, with witnesses giving slightly varying figures . However, the Will itself (Ex. D 1) mentions his age as 80 years, and no docum e ntary evidence was produced to prove that he was 90. Mi n or discrepancies in recollection by witnesses examined years later, can n ot constitute susp i cious circumstances.

¶84

Si m ilarly, minor inconsistencies regarding the testator’s use of spectacles or h earing aids are immaterial. T h ere is no credible evidence t h at Chattar Singh l a cked testamentary capacity. The scribe, both attesting witness e s, and DW4 (with whom the deceased resided) c o nsistently deposed that he was in sound disposin g state of mind at the time of execution.

¶85

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶86

Page No. 9 of 1 4

¶87

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶88

Th e genuineness of a registered Will cannot be left solely at the mercy of the a t testing witnesses. Once the ex e cution of the Will is duly prov e d, minor discrep a ncies in the testimony of an attesting witness during cro s s- examination c a nnot justify the Court in dis r egarding the Will. Although the presence of suspicious circumstances may w a rrant rejection of the Will, such circumstances m ust be real, specific, and sup p orted by evidence—not founded on mere conje c ture or surmise. As noted abov e , a Will is a solemn declaration of a person’s intention regarding the disposition of their property, and the Co u rt should ordinar i ly uphold it once its executi o n is established, unless genuine suspicious circ u mstances exist. An attesting wi t ness cannot be allowed to def e at the testator’s i n tention by minor variations in h is evidence, particularly when he does not dispu t e the due execution of the Will.

¶89

Th o ugh the plaintiffs claimed that Chattar Singh was hospitaliz e d, no medical re c ords or testimony from Dr. C h arnalia were produced to prove mental incapa c ity. The mere existence of p hysical ailment does not im p ly unsoundness o f mind, as mere illness or old a g e of the testator cannot, by its e lf, raise suspicion regarding his mental capacity, if other evidence shows that he understood wh a t he was doing.

¶90

M o ving ahead, the First Appellate Court’s finding that n o n- registration of t he Will raises doubt, is legally u ntenable. Registration of a Wil l is not compulsor y under law. As per the evidenc e , Chattar Singh had arrived at the Tehsil office ar o und 4:30 p.m. The Will was s c ribed thereafter. It can be ea s ily inferred that b y that time, the office had clo s ed before registration could take place. Prepara t ion of two copies, as testified by the scribe, indicates that the testator intend e d to get it registered. His subs e quent decision not to do so d o es not cast any d o ubt on its genuineness. The m e re fact that a Will is unregistered does not rende r it invalid if it is otherwise duly proved.

¶91

As has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhani Ram Vs. Shiv Singh, 2023 (4) RCR (Civil) 603 , mere registra t ion of the Will is not sufficient to prove its vali d ity, as its lawful execution n ecessarily had to be proved in

¶92

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶93

Page No. 10 of 1 4

¶94

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶95

accordance wit h Section 68 of the Evidence Ac t and Section 63 of the Successi o n Act, 1925.

¶96

29.1 Learned c ounsel for the respondents has relied upon Taranjeet Singh Vs. Gurmeet Singh, 2025 (3) RCR (Civil) 859 rendered by this Court itself, in whic h it was held that a Will should be proved as pe r the statutory requirements and that suspicious circumstances - such as abs e nce of registration despite pr i or Wills being registered and lack of mention of t h e cancellation of earlier Wills, can render the Will as invalid.

¶97

29.2 I am afra i d that the facts of the present c ase are quite different because in the present case, the testator has specificall y mentioned that he had earl i er executed two W ills, which shall be treated a s cancelled after the execution of the present Will. Thus, the testator having m a de reference of the earlier Wi l ls, the present Will cannot be discarded for non-r e gistration.

¶98

Fu r ther, the First Appellate Cour t also noted that two daughters’ names were in c orrectly mentioned and that o ne wife was not referred to. T h is reasoning is misplaced. The Will (Ex.D-1) explicitly names the testator’s living wife, Jagir Kaur. No evidence suggests that his o ther wife was alive at the time of execution. Reg a rding the daughters, while their correct names were Sukhwin d er and Rajwinder Kaur, they were referred to as Sukhwant and Rajwant. The plaintiffs’ sole w itness, Surjeet Kaur, did not deny that these names referred to her sisters, nor was such a suggestion made to any of the defendant’s witness e s. Hence, the dis c repancy is inconsequential. Mi n or errors or incorrect description of beneficiarie s do not vitiate a Will, if the identity of the persons intended is clear from the c ontext.

¶99

Fu r ther, the exclusion of certai n heirs was viewed by the First Appellate Cour t as suspicious. However, the W ill itself provides cogent reaso n s. The testator C h attar Singh recorded that out o f his total holding of 138 Kanal 3 Marla, he had a lready distributed substantial portions — 41 Kanal 18 Marla to his son Kulwa n t Singh, 31 Kanal 15 Marla t o his grandsons Wajir Singh and Manjeet (alias G urpreet Singh), and 15 Kanal 11 Marla to his wife Jagir Kaur; and

¶100

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶101

Page No. 11 of 1 4

¶102

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶103

that the remai n ing 48 Kanal 19 Marla was to g o to his daughter-in-law Balwin d er Kaur and her s ons, with whom he was resi d ing. He also mentioned that h is daughters had b een married into well-to-do fa m ilies after incurring considera b le expenditure a n d were living comfortably, a fact candidly admitted by P W 2 Surjeet Kaur. T h e reasons for exclusion of cert a in heirs are thus clearly recorded and rational. M ere exclusion of natural heirs or unequal distribution of prope r ty is not, by its e lf, a suspicious circumstanc e , if the Will contains ratio n al explanations f o r such disposition. As per unrebutted testimony of D W 4 Balwinder Kaur, Jagir Kaur & Kulwant had alre a dy sold the property, which they got from Chatt a r Singh.

¶104

Th e final objection of the First A p pellate Court that Chattar Singh used his thum b impression instead of a signat u re also lacks substance. Evidence shows that h e was semi-literate and use d both thumb impressions and signatures on v arious documents. This is corroborated by the scribe and the attesting witne s ses. The plaintiffs made no eff o rt to prove forgery by examining any handwritin g or fingerprint expert. The bu r den to disprove the genuinen e ss of the thumb i m pression was on the challengers of the Will, which they failed to discharge. Onc e the propounder proves due execution, the onus shifts to the objector to establish that the Will is forged or executed under suspici o us circumstances.

¶105

An aged person who has gone t h rough the hardships of the li f e, knows very well that though there can be question mark on the signatures by doubting the same, but the science of thumb impressions being perfect, the same cannot be forged. As has been observed by this Court in Nihal Kaur Vs. Jagraj Singh, 1997, (3) RCR (Civil) 584 , it is not uncommon that people in villa g es often put their thumb impression in prefere n ce of signature as the science of fingerprint experts is an exact one, wherea s it is not so with regard to the handwriting.

¶106

In light of the foregoing discussi o n, this Court finds that the W ill dated 13.09.1 9 91 was validly executed by C h attar Singh in a sound disposing

¶107

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶108

Page No. 12 of 1 4

¶109

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶110

state of mind and stands duly proved in accor d ance with law.The findings of the First Appellate Court are based on conjecture s and overlook material eviden c e. The reasons as s igned to discard the Will are unsustainable.

¶111

As far as the contention of counsel for the respondents to the eff e ct that High Cour t cannot interfere in the findin g s of facts recorded by the Cou r ts below is conce r ned, there is no merit in it.

¶112

In Lakhpat Rai vs. J.D.Gupta, RSA-4958-2012 decided by this cou r t on 14.10.2024, after referring to catena of precedents on the scope of Sectio n 100 of Code of C ivil Procedure as well as Secti o n 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, it was held as un d er:

¶113

“To conclude, legal principles, which can b e culled out are that though H i gh Court is not to interfere with the concurre n t findings of the Courts below bu t it is not an a bsolute rule. There are some ex c eptions for interference by the H i gh Court, when it is found that:

¶114

When finding of fact by the C ourts below is vitiated by non c o n- sideration of material evidenc e or erroneous approach.

¶115

The Courts have drawn wron g inferences from the proved facts by applying the law erroneously.

¶116

The Courts have wrongly cast t he burden of proof.

¶117

When decision is based upon n o evidence, which would mean t h at not only there is total deart h of evidence but also, where is t he evidence taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.

¶118

When the judgment of th e final Court of fact is based on misinterpretation of documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence or igno r ing material evidence.”

¶119

In ‘ Sukhdev Singh Vs. Manish Aggarwal’, RSA-5792 of 2019 , decided on 30. 0 1.2024 also, this Court after e x amining the scope of Sections 41 and 100 CPC h a s held that if the judgments p assed by the Courts below ar e a result of material illegality going to the root of t he Court case, the High Court w ill

¶120

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶121

Page No. 13 of 1 4

¶122

RSA No. 4273 of 2002

¶123

not hesitate to interfere even in the concurre n t findings of facts. In such a sit u a- tion, the re-ap p reciation of evidence would be necessary.

¶124

In the light of above exceptions, when the evidence on record in the present ca s e is analysed, it is found that t h e first appellate court has dra w n wrong inferen c es from the proved facts by a pplying the law erroneously. The judgment of the first appellate court as f i nal Court of fact, is based misinterpretati o n of evidence or on considera t ion of inadmissible evidence and by ignoring ma t erial evidence. It is found that the evidence taken as a whole , is not reasonably capable of supporting the findi n gs returned by the first appell a te court. As such, the contention of Ld. Counsel f or contesting respondents to the effect that there is no reason to interfere in th e findings of facts of first appell a te court, is found t o be devoid of any merit and, s o the same is rejected.

¶125

O n account of the aforesaid discu s sion, it is held that the finding of the First Appellate Court in discarding the W ill cannot be sustained. The s a id findings are h ereby set aside, and that o f the trial Court are restor e d. Accordingly, th e judgment and decree of the F irst Appellate Court are set asi d e, and the well-reasoned judgment & decree of the Trial Court upholding the validity of the W ill, is restored. Present appeal i s accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear t heir own costs

¶126

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶127

28.10.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶128

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶129

Page No. 14 of 1 4

(O&M) Balwinder Karu and Ors. v. Surjit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Balwinder Karu and Ors. v. Surjit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Ors.

Lakhmi Chand Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Khushi Mohd. Vs Harjit Kaur

Ram Sarup etc. Vs Dalip etc.

(O&M) Ramesh Kumar Vs Ishwar Singh

Municipal Committee Vs Juma Khan