Dismissed¶40

Jaswinder Kaur v. Balrajwinder Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Feb 2026RSA/3428/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proof of Will; single attesting witness sufficient; S.63 Indian Succession Act 1925; S.68 Evidence Act 1872; non-examination of second attesting witness not fatal; stamp-paper discrepancy immaterial; exclusion of daughters not suspicious circumstance; sound disposing state of mind admitted; no expert evidence of forgery; concurrent findings are findings of fact; no substantial question of law; scope of second appeal S.100 CPC; delay condonation S.5 Limitation Act r/w S.151 CPC; intestate succession; Class-I heir 1/6th share; RSA-3428-2023; Jaswinder Kaur v. Balrajwinder Singh.

What did the court decide?

None in the main appeal; the appellant's challenge to the concurrent findings was rejected. Separately, the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal was condoned under CM-12228-C-2023. ¶40

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Balrajwinder Singh and… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None in the main appeal; the appellant's challenge to the concurrent findings was rejected. Separately, the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal was condoned under CM-12228-C-2023.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Will dated 05.07.2004 said to have been executed by Swinder Kaur was duly proved in accordance with law, given that only one attesting witness (Kulbir Kaur) was examined and the other attesting witness (Mehnga Singh) was not produced, and whether the witness's reference to stamp paper renders her testimony unreliable. +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

Non-examination of the second attesting witness does not by itself vitiate proof of the Will once the statutory requirement of examining one attesting witness (per S.63 Indian Succession Act, 1925 and S.68 Evidence Act, 1872) stands satisfied; the testimony of attesting witness Kulbir Kaur remained unshaken in cross-examination and sufficiently proved due execution and attestation.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The minor discrepancy regarding the witness's reference to the Will as executed on stamp paper does not strike at the core of execution, particularly when the witness consistently supported the execution and attestation of the Will.

¶30

Key takeaways

Mere exclusion of daughters from testamentary succession cannot, by itself, be treated as a suspicious circumstance, as the very object of executing a Will is to deviate from the normal line of succession; the Will records the daughters were married and settled, and the sons were looking after the testatrix.ratio¶31
The plaintiff admitted the testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind; no evidence was led to establish coercion, undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity, and despite alleging forgery the plaintiff produced no expert or documentary evidence to substantiate the plea.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., oral) dismisses RSA-3428-2023 by Jaswinder Kaur against concurrent findings upholding a Will dated 05.07.2004 of Swinder Kaur favouring her three sons and excluding her daughters. Holds: proof of execution under S.63 Indian Succession Act, 1925 and S.68 Evidence Act, 1872 is satisfied by examination of one attesting witness (Kulbir Kaur); non-examination of the second attesting witness (Mehnga Singh) does not vitiate proof; the stamp-paper discrepancy is immaterial; exclusion of married daughters is not per se a suspicious circumstance, as a Will's very object is to deviate from normal succession; the plaintiff admitted the testatrix's sound and disposing state of mind and led no evidence of coercion, undue influence or forgery. Concurrent findings on due execution are findings of fact; no substantial question of law arises; mere reappreciation of evidence lies outside S.100 CPC. An 82-day filing delay was condoned (CM-12228-C-2023).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

********

¶3

106

¶4

RSA-3428-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:26.02.2026

¶5

Jaswinder Kaur …..Appellant Vs. Balrajwinder Singh and Others .….Respondents

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present:Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶8

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CM-12228-C-2023:

¶11

This is an applica�on under Sec�on 5 of the Limita�on Act read with Sec�on 151 CPC to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal.

¶12

For the reasons men�oned in the applica�on duly supported by affidavit of appellant Jaswinder Kaur, delay of 82 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶13

Applica�on stands disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Main case.:

¶15

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plain�ff against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby her suit claiming inheritance rights in the estate of late Swinder Kaur was dismissed.

¶16

The dispute pertains to the estate of Swinder Kaur, who died leaving behind three sons, namely Balrajwinder Singh, Gurrajwinder Singh and Sukhrajwinder Singh, and three daughters, namely Rajwinder Kaur, Palwinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur. Sukhrajwinder Singh having pre-

¶17

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-3428-2023 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

deceased, his estate devolved upon his widow Gurmit Kaur and children Ja�nder, Sa�nder and Manjinder Singh.

¶21

The plain�ff–appellant Jaswinder Kaur ins�tuted the suit asser�ng that Swinder Kaur died intestate and, therefore, she was en�tled to succeed as a Class-I heir to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit property.

¶22

The defendants resisted the claim on the basis of a Will dated 05.07.2004 allegedly executed by Swinder Kaur in favour of her three sons, thereby excluding the daughters from inheritance.

¶23

Upon framing of issues and apprecia�on of evidence, the trial Court held that the Will propounded by the defendants stood duly proved in accordance with law and that the plain�ff had failed to establish any circumstance rendering the Will forged or suspicious. The suit was consequently dismissed on 06.02.2018. The First Appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the en�re evidence, affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal on 05.04.2023.

¶24

Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Will was not proved in accordance with law as only one a?es�ng witness, namely Kulbir Kaur, was examined while the other a?es�ng witness Mehnga Singh was not produced. It is further contended that the tes�mony of Kulbir Kaur was unreliable since she referred to the Will as being executed on stamp paper, whereas the document was not so executed. Learned counsel has also argued that exclusion of the daughters without sufficient jus�fica�on cons�tutes a suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will.

¶25

The conten�ons do not merit acceptance.

¶26

The First Appellate Court has exhaus�vely analysed the evidence and correctly applied the statutory requirements contained in Sec�on 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Sec�on 68 of the Indian

¶27

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA-3428-2023 (O&M) -3-

¶29

Evidence Act, 1872 which mandate examina�on of at least one a?es�ng witness to prove execu�on of a Will. In the present case, Kulbir Kaur, an a?es�ng witness and former Sarpanch of the village, categorically deposed regarding the manner of execu�on of the Will, iden�fica�on of the signatures of the testatrix, and a?esta�on in the presence of the other witness. Her tes�mony remained unshaken in cross-examina�on and sufficiently proved due execu�on and a?esta�on.

¶30

The non-examina�on of the second a?es�ng witness, by itself, does not vi�ate proof of the Will once the statutory requirement of examining one a?es�ng witness stands sa�sfied. The minor discrepancy regarding reference to stamp paper does not strike at the core of execu�on, par�cularly when the witness consistently supported the execu�on and a?esta�on of the Will.

¶31

The plea of suspicious circumstances is equally devoid of substance. The Will itself records that the daughters were married, se?led in their matrimonial homes, and that the testatrix had already incurred expenses on their marriages. The evidence further indicates that the sons were residing in the village and were looking aCer the testatrix. The mere exclusion of daughters from testamentary succession cannot, by itself, be treated as a suspicious circumstance, as the very object of execu�ng a Will is to deviate from the normal line of succession.

¶32

Significantly, the plain�ff admi?ed that the testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind. No evidence was led to establish coercion, undue influence, or lack of testamentary capacity. Furthermore, despite alleging forgery, the plain�ff failed to produce any expert or documentary evidence to substan�ate the plea, nor was any enmity with the a?es�ng witnesses suggested that could indicate fabrica�on.

¶33

Thus, the propounders successfully discharged the ini�al burden of proving the Will, whereaCer the onus shiCed upon the plain�ff

¶34

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

RSA-3428-2023 (O&M)

¶36

-4-

¶37

to establish suspicious circumstances or forgery, which she failed to do.

¶38

The findings recorded by both Courts below are based on proper apprecia�on of oral and documentary evidence and reflect a correct applica�on of se?led principles governing proof of testamentary documents. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or legal infirmity has been demonstrated.

¶39

It is well se?led that concurrent findings rela�ng to due execu�on of a Will are essen�ally findings of fact and cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or giving rise to a substan�al ques�on of law. The present appeal merely seeks reapprecia�on of evidence, which falls outside the scope of jurisdic�on under Sec�on 100 CPC.

¶40

Consequently, no substan�al ques�on of law arises for considera�on. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶41

All pending miscellaneous applica�ons, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶42

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 26, 2026 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶43

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaswinder Kaur v. Balrajwinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Kaur v. Balrajwinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Ram Parshad etc.

Bahadur Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Duman

(O&M) N.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Amarjit Kaur etc.

Kaur Singh Vs Gurmail Singh

Isa Khan Vs Mohar Khan

Niranjan Singh Vs Kuldip Singh and Others