Hig High Court
Case Details
RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4273 of 2002 Reserved on: 15.10.202 Pronounced on: 28.10. 02(O&M) .2025 .10.2025 Balwinder Kaur aur & Ors. Surjit Kaur & Ors Ors. Versus …Appellant llants …Respondent ents CORAM: HON’BL PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. vocate Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advoca ate With Mr. Saket Bhandari, Advocate With : 2 to 4 before trial court). for the appellants(defendants N: 2 to for t Mr. Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for t for the respondents(plaintiffs, and court. court rial nd defendants N: 1 & 5 before trial *** DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. It is the e some of the defendants’ appea ppeal against reversal. The suit fo it for declaration filed iled by plaintiffs (respondents N: 1 to y the : 1 to 6 herein) was dismissed by the Trial Court on 20 n 20.03.2001, but the First Appella ellate Court, Karnal, vide judgmen ment dated 28.09.2002 2002, allowed the appeal of the pla tiffs’ plaintiffs and decreed the plaintiffs suit. 2. For clarity, the parties are referred t For c Trial red to by their status before the Tria Court. The Trial C ial Court record has been called & examined. 3. The dispute relates to the estate The d on ate of Chattar Singh, who died on 03.12.1991, leav leaving behind his widow Jagir Ka ir Kaur (defendant N: 1), two son sons Kulwant Singh (d (defendant N: 5) and Buta Singh ingh; and four daughters Surjit Kau Kaur (plaintiff N: 1), Ra Rajinder Kaur (plaintiff N: 2), Sukh , and Sukhwinder Kaur (plaintiff N: 3), and Joginder Kaur. Joginder Kaur and Buta Singh h ingh. gh had predeceased Chattar Singh Plaintiffs N: 4 to 4 to 6 are legal heirs of deceased d ed daughter Joginder Kaur, wherea ereas JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 1 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 Defendants N: 2 N: 2 to 4 (appellants herein) are re legal heirs of deceased son But Buta Singh. 4. The plaintiffs i.e., three surviving d The ng daughters and the legal heirs o irs of the fourth, claim claimed inheritance to the estat state of Chattar Singh by natura tural succession, challe hallenging the Will dated 13.09.199 ation .1991 and the consequent mutation No. 2583 dated 2 ed 28.09.1992, sanctioned on its ba : s basis. The plaintiffs alleged that : Chattar Sin r Singh, aged about 90 years and in ound d in poor health, was not in a sound disposing s ing state of mind at the time of the the alleged Will; He habitua itually signed in Punjabi and never u ver used a thumb impression; The Will ill lacks addresses of attesting w ng witnesses and proper propert perty details; The Will w was not read over to Chattar Sing Singh; and that The mutat utation based on it was sanctioned w ed without notice to them. They further con contend that the properties are an indu re ancestral and governed by Hindu Law, hence soug ought declaration that the Will is fo also is forged and inoperative. They also prayed for an in n injunction to restrain the defen efendants from alienating the sui suit property. 5.1
Legal Reasoning
The defendants contested the suit. The i.e., suit. Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. legal heirs of dec deceased son Buta Singh of Chatta ated attar Singh supported the Will dated 13.09.1991, asse asserting that it was duly executed ound uted by Chattar Singh in his sound state of mind. Th d. They contended that he, being s umb ing semi-illiterate, used both thumb impressions and and signatures, and that defendan sold dants No. 1 and 5 had already sold their shares. 5.2 Defendants No. 1 and 5 (the widow Defe d the idow and surviving son) denied the authenticity of t of the Will dated 13.09.1991, cla , claiming that on that very date date, Chattar Singh w h was hospitalized. They instead r ated ad relied upon another Will dated 06.05.1991 regis egistered on 17.05.1991 with Sub R ed to ub Registrar, which they asserted to be his last valid valid Will executed in favour of d of defendants No. 1 to 5 (excep xcept o. 2). defendant No. 2) JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 2 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 5.3 6. Both sets of defendants prayed for d Both for dismissal of the suit. After framing issues and evaluatin Afte ating the evidence, the Trial Cour ourt found that the the Will dated 13.09.1991 had be been validly executed by Chatta attar Singh. The Trial rial Court held that execution was as proved by the testimony of th f the two attesting w g witnesses and the scribe, and t nd that the plaintiffs had failed to d to establish the sus suspicious circumstances they alle Trial alleged. On these findings the Tria Court dismissed t sed the suit on 20.01.2001. 7. However, on appeal by the plain How laintiffs, the First Appellate Cour ourt reversed the Tr Trial Court’s conclusions. It found ound the attesting witnesses to b o be unreliable and h d held that the Will was surround nces, unded by suspicious circumstances which prevented nted its valid proof. Accordingly ngly, the Appellate Court vide it e its judgment dated ated 28.09.2002 declared the W Will dated 13.09.1991 and the the consequent muta mutation to be illegal and void and and directed that the legal heirs irs of Chattar Singh su succeeded to the property by na y natural succession. Direction wa was issued for correc rrection of revenue records, and from d defendants were restrained from alienating the sui e suit property. 8. Defendants No. 2 to 4 (i.e., leg Defe legal heirs of Buta Singh) have have challenged the a e above reversal before this Cou Court. Learned Senior Counsel fo l for these appellants lants argues that the Appellate C te Court erred in disbelieving th the attesting witness nesses, who were well-known to th ony, o the testator and whose testimony corroborated by by the scribe, established due e e execution. Ld. Counsel contend ends that the Appellat ellate Court relied on conjectures in ence, in discarding competent evidence and that neither her the exclusion of natural heirs n on is, irs nor the absence of registration is by itself, sufficien icient to create suspicious circumst mstances. He, therefore, prayed fo d for restoration of the f the Trial Court’s judgment. 9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the res Per c respondents-plaintiffs submits tha that the First Appellat ellate Court provided cogent reason asons for rejecting the Will and tha that those findings do s do not call for interference. He pra peal. prayed for dismissal of the appeal. JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 3 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 10. The Court has considered the subm The submissions of both parties and ha has carefully appraise raised the record. 11. It is undisputed that all parties to th It is to the suit are the legal heirs of lat f late Chattar Singh, wh , who passed away on 03.12.1991 a . The 91 at the age of about 90 years. The plaintiffs compris prise his daughters and the legal h hter, gal heirs of a predeceased daughter while the defend fendants include his widow, survivin viving son, and the legal heirs of hi f his deceased son. The plaintiffs claim ownership hip of the suit property by natura tural succession, wher hereas the defendants assert the their right on the basis of the Wi Will dated 13.09.199 .1991. The plaintiffs allege that that the said Will is forged and and surrounded by s by suspicious circumstances, while hile the defendants maintain that i hat it was duly execute cuted by Chattar Singh in a sound an d and disposing state of mind. 12. Thus us, the core issue for determina ated mination is whether the Will dated 13.09.1991 execu xecuted by Chattar Singh was duly duly proved and valid in law,and/ d/or whether it is surr surrounded by suspicious circumsta stances. 13.1 PW1 Gurbachan Singh, resident of PW1 at he t of village Bairsal, deposed that he was acquainted ted with Chattar Singh, who was ab s about 90 years old at the time o e of his death. He sta e stated that 3–4 years prior to his allen his death, Chattar Singh had fallen seriously ill and s nd stayed with his son-in-law Sada S da Singh in village Bairsal. Accordin rding to him, 2–4 mon months before his death, Chattar and ttar Singh had lost his hearing and eyesight and was was not in a sound state of mind. H ated d. He was said to have been treated by one Dr. Char Charalia (or Dr. Karnalia) at Nilok ilokheri and to have died in tha that hospital. During ing cross-examination, PW1 admitt mitted that he was brought by Sad Sada Singh husband o d of one of the daughters of Chatt hattar Singh. He acknowledged tha that Chattar Singh usu usually resided in Nilokheri with h hter- th his wife Jagir Kaur, son, daughter in-law Balwinder nder Kaur, and grandsons, and wou would only visit Bairsal occasionall nally during family dis disputes. He also stated that Chat lized Chattar Singh had been hospitalized for 10–15 days an ys and used a hearing aid for severa veral years. 13.2 It is noteworthy that neither Dr. C It is ined, r. Charalia/ Karnalia was examined nor any hospital ital record was produced to substan
Legal Reasoning
stantiate these claims. JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 4 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 13.3 PW2 Surjeet Kaur, one of the pla PW2 plaintiffs and daughter of Chatta attar Singh, testified th ed that her father was around 90 ye eath, 0 years old at the time of his death suffered from we weak eyesight and hearing loss, an Dr. s, and had taken treatment from Dr Charalia at Nilokh ilokheri. She denied that her father her had executed any Will, assertin rting that he used to s to sign in Punjabi. During cross-exa examination, she admitted that all daughters were ere married and living with their had eir in-laws; that Chattar Singh had spent substantia ntially on their marriages and dowr kheri owries; that he resided in Nilokher with his son, dau , daughter-in-law, and grandsons; a s; and that both Jagir Kaur (widow dow) and Kulwant Sin t Singh (son) had already sold th ld their properties. She expressed ssed ignorance about sal. out Chattar Singh’s visits to Bairsal. 13.4 No other witnesses were examine No o ined on behalf of the plaintiffs in their affirmative tive evidence. 14.1 DW1 Balbir Singh, a document write DW1 981, writer at Tehsil Nilokheri since 1981 stated that he s he scribed the Will dated 13.09.1 09.1991 (Ex.D1) on Chattar Singh’ ngh’s instructions. Afte After reading it and explaining its co ts contents, Chattar Singh affixed hi d his thumb impressio ession in his presence, which wa was then attested by Teja Singh Singh (Nambardar) and and Tarlok Singh. The Will was ent l no. s entered in his register at serial no 301, bearing thu thumb impressions and signature tures of the testator and attestin sting witnesses. He de e denied suggestions that Chattar Si ar Singh was unwell, hospitalized, o d, or not of sound min mind on that date, estimating his ag is age then as 60–65 years. 14.2 DW2 Teja Singh, one of the at DW2 attesting witnesses to the Wil Will, corroborated DW DW1’s testimony, confirming that and hat the Will (Ex.D1) was scribed and read over by Bal Balbir Singh, and executed by Cha Chattar Singh in their presence. H e. He affirmed that Cha t Chattar Singh was in sound disposi r and posing state of mind, could hear and see properly, an , and came alone to the Tehsil . on hsil office at about 4:30 p.m. on 13.09.1991. He d He denied that Chattar Singh was ho s hospitalized or hard of hearing. 14.3 DW3 Satpal Singh proved a certified DW3 deed tified copy of a registered sale deed dated 01.08.1997 1997 (Ex.D2). JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 5 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 14.4 DW4 Balwinder Kaur, daughter-in DW4 in-law and one of the beneficiarie iaries under the Will, d ill, deposed that Chattar Singh owne lived wned land in village Bairsal but lived in Nilokheri, whe where he had about six Killas of la . The f land at the time of his death. The remaining land h nd had already been transferred b ed by him to his wife, son Kulwan want Singh, and grand randsons through a decree. She stat with stated that Chattar Singh lived with her after 1983, w 83, was looked after by her, and d Bhog nd died at her residence. The Bhog ceremony was a as also performed at her house. ined se. She affirmed that he remained mentally sound t nd till his death, though he used h . She ed hearing aids and spectacles. She denied that the W he Will was forged or executed und ntly, under undue influence. Importantly her cross-examin amination reveals no suggestion th n that any names or descriptions ns of the property in in the Will (Ex.D1) were incorrec orrect, or that any beneficiary wa was wrongly mention tioned. 15. The second attesting witness, Tarlo The Tarlok Singh, was not examined b d by the defendants ts during their evidence but was ex PW3 as examined by the plaintiffs as PW3 in rebuttal. Cont ontrary to the plaintiffs’ case, PW3 s and PW3 supported the defendants and confirmed the d e due execution of the Will (Ex.D Ex.D1). He stated that the Will wa l was executed on 13. 13.09.1991 at about 4:00–4:30 p 30 p.m. in the Tehsil office, when hen Chattar Singh, ag h, aged around 75–80 years, was in ind. as in sound disposing state of mind He deposed that that Chattar Singh could hear, wal and walk, and understand properly and that he had him himself requested Tarlok Singh gh to attest the Will. He furthe rther mentioned that hat Chattar Singh had told him he he had cancelled the earlier Will Wills before executing ting the present one. 16. From the above, it is evident that w From oral at while the plaintiffs relied on ora testimony alone, one, unsupported by medical or doc documentary evidence to prove th e the alleged unsound undness of mind or illness of of Chattar Singh, the defendant ants examined one of e of the attesting witnesses and the oved the scribe, who consistently proved the due executio ution of the Will in accordance wi e with law. Even the other attestin sting witness, examine mined by plaintiffs in rebuttal prove roved the due execution of the Wi Will in accordance wi e with law JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 6 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 17. Though the Trial Court accepted th Thou d the Will as duly proved, the Firs First Appellate Court urt found the witnesses unreliab liable and held that the Will w was surrounded by s by suspicious circumstances. The o he observations made by the Firs First Appellate Court urt regarding the validity of the the Will dated 13.09.1991 and to d to discard it, require quire careful scrutiny. 18. Befo efore proceeding further, it will be legal ill be useful to take note of the lega requirement to p to prove the legality and validity o ity of a Will, when under attack. k. In Rani Purnima D a Devi vs Kumar Khagendra Na 567, Narayan Dev, AIR 1962 SC 567 Hon’ble Supreme eme Court held as under: “Before we we consider the facts of this case ase it is well to set out the principle ciples which gove govern the, proving of a will. This w is was considered b this Court in H. Venkatacha achala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmaja ajamma(AIR 1959 SC 443). It wa was observed in that case that the mode of prov proving a will did not ordinarily diffe differ from that o at of proving any other document ex t except as to the special requiremen ment of attestat station prescribed in the case of a of a will by Section 63 of the India ndian Succession sion Act. The onus of proving the will will was on the propounder and in th n the absence of e of suspicious circumstances surround ounding the execution of the will proo proof of testamen mentary capacity and signature of th f the. testator as required by law wa was sufficient t nt to discharge the onus. Where, re, however, there were' suspiciou cious circumstan stances, the onus would be on the p e propounder to explain them to th o the satisfaction tion of the Court before the will cou l could be accepted as genuine. If th If the caveats alle alleged undue influence, fraud or co him r coercion, the onus would be on him to prove th e the same.” 19. In present case, the First Appellate In p cribe llate Court observed that the scribe Balbir Singh (DW (DW1), was not acquainted with the the testator and that both attestin sting witnesses were p ere professional persons frequentin nting the Tehsil office. However, a r, as rightly pointed o d out by Ld. Counsel for the appell pellants, these findings are contrar trary to the record. a) PW1 Balbir Singh was a regular doc PW1 n the r document writer, registered in the Tehsil office, Nilo Nilokheri since 1981. He stated that that although Chattar Singh was no s not personally know nown to him, but used to frequen uently approach him for preparin aring JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 7 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 documents. He He categorically testified that the the Will was executed by Chatta attar Singh, who put h ut his thumb impression both on th n the Will and on his register. Ther here is no challenge th ge that these impressions were not t not those of Chattar Singh. b) Likewise, DW2 Teja Singh’s testi Likew rded estimony could not be discarded merely because use he happened to be in the Teh Tehsil office. He was a resident o nt of village Nilokheri, eri, living within 500–600 yards of C tified of Chattar Singh’s house as testified by him, and also also served as the Nambardar of the of the village. His presence in the Tehsil office, ther therefore, was natural and not susp suspicious. c) PW3 Tarlok Singh, the other att PW3 attesting witness, also offered ed a reasonable expla xplanation for his presence, stating ting that he had gone there to mee meet his counsel in co n connection with his personal case ould case. His testimony, therefore, could not be brushed hed aside. It is particularly note noteworthy that this witness wa was examined by the the plaintiffs themselves and yet h ution yet he supported the due execution of the Will. The The plaintiffs never declared him now im hostile, and hence cannot now claim that his sta s statement is unreliable. d) Thus, the due execution of the Wi Thus Will dated 13.09.1991 stands dul duly proved by the co e consistent testimonies of the scrib sses, scribe and both attesting witnesses in accordance wi e with Sections 63(c) of the Indian S ction ian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian E ian Evidence Act, 1872. e) As per settled legal position, proof o As p oof of a Will requires examination o on of at least one of th of the attesting witnesses to show umb ow that the testator signed/ thumb marked the Will Will and that he & other witness The ess attested it in his presence. The evidence here sa e satisfies these statutory requirem rements. 20. As far as suspicious circumstances n As fa es noted by the first appellate cour court are concerned, i d, it may be clarified that in matt atters relating to a Will, the Cour ourt must refrain from from imposing its own perception tion. Interference is warranted onl only when there exis exist genuine and substantial gro grounds showing that the Will i ill is surrounded by by strong and well-founded s uch d suspicious circumstances. Such circumstances m s must be specifically put to the att be to e attesting witnesses or the scribe to JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 8 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 seek their expla xplanation and cannot rest on m tion. n mere conjecture or imagination Unless a proper per foundation, supported by evid icate evidence, is established to indicate that the Will is ta tainted by suspicion, the Court sh rt should not intervene. 21. A Will is a solemn document that ta A W at takes effect after the death of th f the testator, and the the Court should ordinarily respect pect the testator’s wishes unless th s the propounder fails fails to prove its due execution, n, or there are credible reasons to ns to believe that it do it does not reflect the true intent ent of the testator. While assessin ssing the credibility of y of the attesting witnesses, their t eir testimony must be considered a ed as a whole. With th h the passage of time, some lapse o pse of memory is natural, and mino inor inconsistencies s ies should not be treated as fatal. atal. Each witness perceives event vents differently, and t nd therefore, their oral evidence m and ce must be evaluated with care and realism. 22. It has often been observed that Wil It ha t Wills are labelled as suspicious in s in a casual manner, w er, which is an incorrect approach. T ch. The Court must not substitute it te its own opinion but but decide solely on the basis of e of evidence. Before declaring a Wi Will to be surrounded nded by suspicious circumstances, t es, the Court must place itself in th n the position of the the testator and objectively asse assess whether the circumstance nces genuinely cast do st doubt on the voluntariness or aut authenticity of the document. 23. In present case, the First App In p rtain Appellate Court noticed certain contradictions re s regarding the age of Chattar Sing Singh, with witnesses giving slightl ightly varying figures. H es. However, the Will itself (Ex.D1 ears, x.D1) mentions his age as 80 years and no documen mentary evidence was produced t ed to prove that he was 90. Mino inor s discrepancies in recollection by witnesses in es examined years later, canno nnot constitute suspic spicious circumstances. 24. Similarly, minor inconsistencies re Simi s regarding the testator’s use o e of spectacles or he r hearing aids are immaterial. The There is no credible evidence tha that Chattar Singh lac lacked testamentary capacity. The sses, The scribe, both attesting witnesses and DW4 (with w ith whom the deceased resided) con as in consistently deposed that he was in sound disposing ing state of mind at the time of exe execution. JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 9 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 25. The genuineness of a registered W The t the d Will cannot be left solely at the mercy of the atte attesting witnesses. Once the exec ved, execution of the Will is duly proved minor discrepan pancies in the testimony of an ross- an attesting witness during cross examination can cannot justify the Court in disre isregarding the Will. Although th the presence of susp suspicious circumstances may war such warrant rejection of the Will, such circumstances m s must be real, specific, and suppo nded pported by evidence—not founded on mere conjectu jecture or surmise. As noted above, ove, a Will is a solemn declaration o on of a person’s intent tention regarding the disposition o on of their property, and the Cour ourt should ordinarily arily uphold it once its execution uine tion is established, unless genuine suspicious circum rcumstances exist. An attesting witn witness cannot be allowed to defea efeat the testator’s int s intention by minor variations in hi in his evidence, particularly when h n he does not dispute ill. ute the due execution of the Will. 26. Though the plaintiffs claimed that Thou lized, hat Chattar Singh was hospitalized no medical reco records or testimony from Dr. Cha rove Charnalia were produced to prove mental incapacit pacity. The mere existence of ph f physical ailment does not impl imply unsoundness of m of mind, as mere illness or old age itself, age of the testator cannot, by itself raise suspicion r on regarding his mental capacity, if other evidence shows that h at he understood what hat he was doing. 27. Moving ahead, the First Appella Mov non- pellate Court’s finding that non registration of th f the Will raises doubt, is legally un ly untenable. Registration of a Will i ill is not compulsory u ory under law. As per the evidence, t the nce, Chattar Singh had arrived at the Tehsil office arou around 4:30 p.m. The Will was scr s scribed thereafter. It can be easil asily inferred that by by that time, the office had close losed before registration could tak take place. Preparatio ration of two copies, as testified b t the ed by the scribe, indicates that the testator intended nded to get it registered. His subseq bsequent decision not to do so doe does not cast any dou doubt on its genuineness. The mer tered mere fact that a Will is unregistered does not render i der it invalid if it is otherwise duly p ly proved. 28. As has been held by Hon’ble Suprem As h . Shiv preme Court in Dhani Ram Vs. Shiv Singh, 2023 (4) R (4) RCR (Civil) 603, mere registratio nt to ration of the Will is not sufficient to prove its validit lidity, as its lawful execution ne d in necessarily had to be proved in JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 10 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 accordance with ith Section 68 of the Evidence Act a ssion Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925. 29.1 Learned c d counsel for the respondents has h Vs. has relied upon Taranjeet Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh, 2 gh, 2025 (3) RCR (Civil) 859 rendere dered by this Court itself, in which i ich it was held that a t a Will should be proved as per and per the statutory requirements and that suspicious c us circumstances - such as absen sence of registration despite prio prior Wills being regist egistered and lack of mention of the can f the cancellation of earlier Wills, can render the Will as invalid. 29.2 I am afraid fraid that the facts of the present ca se in t case are quite different because in the present case case, the testator has specifically ally mentioned that he had earlie arlier executed two W Wills, which shall be treated as c as cancelled after the execution o on of the present Will Will. Thus, the testator having mad Wills, made reference of the earlier Wills the present Will ill cannot be discarded for non-reg registration. 30. Further, the First Appellate Court Furt ters’ urt also noted that two daughters names were inco incorrectly mentioned and that on t one wife was not referred to. Thi . This reasoning is mis misplaced. The Will (Ex.D-1) explic xplicitly names the testator’s livin living wife, Jagir Kaur. N ur. No evidence suggests that his ot other wife was alive at the time o e of execution. Regar egarding the daughters, while their heir correct names were Sukhwinde inder and Rajwinder er Kaur, they were referred to a to as Sukhwant and Rajwant. Th The plaintiffs’ sole w le witness, Surjeet Kaur, did not de ed to t deny that these names referred to her sisters, nor w or was such a suggestion made to sses. to any of the defendant’s witnesses Hence, the discre iscrepancy is inconsequential. Mino ption inor errors or incorrect description of beneficiaries d ies do not vitiate a Will, if the ide identity of the persons intended i ed is clear from the co e context. 31. Further, the exclusion of certain Furt ain heirs was viewed by the Firs First Appellate Court a urt as suspicious. However, the Wi sons. Will itself provides cogent reasons The testator Cha Chattar Singh recorded that out of nal 3 t of his total holding of 138 Kanal 3 Marla, he had al d already distributed substantial p la to ial portions — 41 Kanal 18 Marla to his son Kulwant ant Singh, 31 Kanal 15 Marla to and to his grandsons Wajir Singh and Manjeet (alias Gu s Gurpreet Singh), and 15 Kanal 11 and l 11 Marla to his wife Jagir Kaur; and JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 11 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 that the remainin aining 48 Kanal 19 Marla was to go go to his daughter-in-law Balwinde inder Kaur and her so r sons, with whom he was residin siding. He also mentioned that hi t his daughters had be d been married into well-to-do fam families after incurring considerabl rable expenditure and and were living comfortably, a f PW2 a fact candidly admitted by PW2 Surjeet Kaur. The . The reasons for exclusion of certai rded rtain heirs are thus clearly recorded and rational. Me Mere exclusion of natural heirs or s or unequal distribution of propert perty is not, by itsel itself, a suspicious circumstance ional nce, if the Will contains rationa explanations for for such disposition. As per u DW4 r unrebutted testimony of DW4 Balwinder Kaur, ur, Jagir Kaur & Kulwant had alread lready sold the property, which the they got from Chattar ttar Singh. 32. The final objection of the First App The Singh Appellate Court that Chattar Singh used his thumb i mb impression instead of a signatur ence ature also lacks substance. Evidence shows that he he was semi-literate and used and sed both thumb impressions and signatures on va n various documents. This is corro the orroborated by the scribe and the attesting witness nesses. The plaintiffs made no effor effort to prove forgery by examinin ining any handwriting ting or fingerprint expert. The burd burden to disprove the genuinenes ness of the thumb imp impression was on the challengers ed to gers of the Will, which they failed to discharge. Once nce the propounder proves due ex e execution, the onus shifts to th the objector to esta establish that the Will is forged ged or executed under suspiciou cious circumstances. 33. An aged person who has gone thr An a life, through the hardships of the life knows very well well that though there can be ques question mark on the signatures b es by doubting the sam same, but the science of thumb , the mb impressions being perfect, the same cannot be be forged. As has been observed r Vs. d by this Court in Nihal Kaur Vs Jagraj Singh, 199 , 1997, (3) RCR (Civil) 584, it is not u ot uncommon that people in village lages often put their t eir thumb impression in preference ence of signature as the science o ce of fingerprint exper xperts is an exact one, whereas i as it is not so with regard to th the handwriting. 34. In light of the foregoing discussion In li ssion, this Court finds that the Wi Will dated 13.09.199 .1991 was validly executed by Cha Chattar Singh in a sound disposin osing JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 12 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 state of mind and and stands duly proved in accorda the ordance with law.The findings of the First Appellate C te Court are based on conjectures ence. res and overlook material evidence The reasons assig assigned to discard the Will are unsu unsustainable. 35. As far as the contention of counsel f As fa sel for the respondents to the effec ffect that High Court c urt cannot interfere in the findings ings of facts recorded by the Court ourts below is concern cerned, there is no merit in it. 36. In La Lakhpat Rai vs. J.D.Gupta, RSA- urt -4958-2012 decided by this court on 14.10.2024, a , after referring to catena of prece tion recedents on the scope of Section 100 of Code of Ci of Civil Procedure as well as Section t, it tion 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, it was held as unde nder: “To conclu nclude, legal principles, which can be n be culled out are that though Hig High Court is no s not to interfere with the concurrent rent findings of the Courts below but i but it is not an ab n absolute rule. There are some exce xceptions for interference by the Hig High Court, whe when it is found that: When finding of fact by the Co e Courts below is vitiated by non co con- sideration of material evidence nce or erroneous approach. The Courts have drawn wrong i ng inferences from the proved facts b ts by applying the law erroneously. The Courts have wrongly cast th st the burden of proof. When decision is based upon no n no evidence, which would mean tha that not only there is total dearth o h of evidence but also, where is th s the ole, evidence taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable o le of supporting the finding. When the judgment of the he final Court of fact is based o d on misinterpretation of documenta entary evidence or on consideration o on of inadmissible evidence or ignorin oring material evidence.” 37. In ‘Sukhdev Singh Vs. Manish In ish Aggarwal’, RSA-5792 of 2019 2019, decided on 30.01 0.01.2024 also, this Court after exa ns 41 examining the scope of Sections 41 and 100 CPC has has held that if the judgments pa s passed by the Courts below are are a result of materia erial illegality going to the root of th of the Court case, the High Court w will JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 13 of 14 RSA No. 4273 of 3 of 2002 not hesitate to in to interfere even in the concurrent ent findings of facts. In such a situ itua- tion, the re-appre ppreciation of evidence would be n be necessary. 38. In the light of above exceptions, w In t rd in ns, when the evidence on record in the present case case is analysed, it is found that the rawn the first appellate court has drawn wrong inference nces from the proved facts by a The applying the law erroneously. The judgment of th the first appellate court as fin final Court of fact, is based on d on misinterpretation ation of evidence or on considerati and ration of inadmissible evidence and by ignoring mate aterial evidence. It is found that the evidence taken as a whole, i le, is not reasonably c ly capable of supporting the finding llate dings returned by the first appellate court. As such, th h, the contention of Ld. Counsel fo el for contesting respondents to th o the effect that there ere is no reason to interfere in the f the findings of facts of first appellat llate court, is found to d to be devoid of any merit and, so , so the same is rejected. 39. On account of the aforesaid discuss On a cussion, it is held that the finding o ng of the First Appella pellate Court in discarding the Wil said Will cannot be sustained. The said findings are he hereby set aside, and that of ored. of the trial Court are restored Accordingly, the the judgment and decree of the Fir side, e First Appellate Court are set aside and the well ell-reasoned judgment & decree g the ee of the Trial Court upholding the validity of the Wi e Will, is restored. Present appeal is g the al is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear th ar their own costs 28.10.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.28 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Page No. 14 of 14