Sukhpal Kaur and Others Sukhpal Kaur and Other v. Balbir Singh
Case Details
RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-4512-2012 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-09.09.2025 Date of Decision : 15.09.2025 Date of Decision : Sukhpal Kaur and Others Sukhpal Kaur and Other ....Appellants VERSUS Balbir Singh ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the the the the appellants/defendants challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, appellants/defendants challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, appellants/defendants challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, appellants/defendants challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, decreed whereby the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.2010 decreed whereby the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated whereby the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, and the learned the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, a vide nd the learned Lower Appellate Court vide 2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the 2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the judgment and decree dated appellants/defendants, thereby upholding the decision of the learned trial Court. appellants/defendants, thereby upholding the decision of the appellants/defendants, thereby upholding the decision of the Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/6th share in the suit property as effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/6th share in the suit property as effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/6th share in the suit property as effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/6th share in the suit property as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Pattar Kalan, Tehsil and detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Pattar Kalan, Tehsil and detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Pattar Kalan, Tehsil and detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Pattar Kalan, Tehsil and alandhar. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction District Jalandhar. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction alandhar. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction alandhar. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -2- - restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property, restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property, restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property, restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property, and in the alternative also prayed for a decree of possession against the defendants. and in the alternative also prayed for a decree of possession against the defendants. and in the alternative also prayed for a decree of possession against the defendants. and in the alternative also prayed for a decree of possession against the defendants. 3. ts of the case are that the plaintiff ordinarily resides in the The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff ordinarily resides in the ts of the case are that the plaintiff ordinarily resides in the The brief fac United Kingdom and came to India in connection with the death of his father, Tara United Kingdom and came to India in connection with the death of his father, Tara United Kingdom and came to India in connection with the death of his father, Tara United Kingdom and came to India in connection with the death of his father, Tara 2003 in favour of Singh. He executed a Special Power of Attorney on 06.12.2003 in favour of Singh. He executed a Special Power of Attorney on Singh. He executed a Special Power of Attorney on h, resident of village Chitti, District Manjinder Singh, son of Manohar Singh, resident of village Chitti, District h, resident of village Chitti, District Manjinder Singh, son of Manohar Sing Jalandhar, authorising him to file the suit on his behalf. Tara Singh, father of the Jalandhar, authorising him to file the suit on his behalf. Tara Singh, father of the Jalandhar, authorising him to file the suit on his behalf. Tara Singh, father of the Jalandhar, authorising him to file the suit on his behalf. Tara Singh, father of the plaintiff, was the exclusive owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is the only son plaintiff, was the exclusive owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is the only son plaintiff, was the exclusive owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is the only son plaintiff, was the exclusive owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is the only son d he succeeded to his estate including of his father Tara Singh, since deceased, and he succeeded to his estate including d he succeeded to his estate including of his father Tara Singh, since deceased, an the suit property on the basis of natural succession. The plaintiff became owner in the suit property on the basis of natural succession. The plaintiff became owner in the suit property on the basis of natural succession. The plaintiff became owner in the suit property on the basis of natural succession. The plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of natural succession after the death of possession of the suit property on the basis of natural succession after the death of possession of the suit property on the basis of natural succession after the death of possession of the suit property on the basis of natural succession after the death of his father Tara Singh. his father Tara Singh. 4. d that the defendants started proclaiming their It is further pleaded that the defendants started proclaiming their d that the defendants started proclaiming their It is further pleade alleged to ownership over the suit property on the basis of some registered Will alleged to ownership over the suit property on the basis of some registered ownership over the suit property on the basis of some registered ill so set up by the have been executed by Tara Singh in their favour. The Will so set up by the have been executed by Tara Singh in their favour. The have been executed by Tara Singh in their favour. The d document and is the result of defendants is a forged, fabricated, illegal and void document and is the result of defendants is a forged, fabricated, illegal and voi defendants is a forged, fabricated, illegal and voi impersonation. The plaintiff further pleaded that the property is ancestral property impersonation. The plaintiff further pleaded that the property is ancestral property impersonation. The plaintiff further pleaded that the property is ancestral property impersonation. The plaintiff further pleaded that the property is ancestral property
Facts
and constitutes joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff with his father Tara and constitutes joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff with his father Tara and constitutes joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff with his father Tara and constitutes joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff with his father Tara Singh, and hence no such Will could have been executed wi Singh, and hence no such th respect thereto. ill could have been executed with respect thereto. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession in the alternative against the defendants. possession in the alternative against the defendants. possession in the alternative against the defendants. 5. filed written statement Upon notice, the defendants appeared and joint filed written statement Upon notice, the defendants appeared and Upon notice, the defendants appeared and alleging therein that the plaintiff has not come to the alleging therein that ourt with clean hands and the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It was pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the has suppressed material facts. It was pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the has suppressed material facts. It was pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the has suppressed material facts. It was pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and does not lie against defendants No. 2 and 3 on account of their present form and does not lie against defendants No. 2 and 3 on account of their present form and does not lie against defendants No. 2 and 3 on account of their present form and does not lie against defendants No. 2 and 3 on account of their TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -3- - minority status. It was further contended that the attorney minority status. It was fur holder of the plaintiff is ther contended that the attorney-holder of the plaintiff is not competent to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has no right, title not competent to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has no right, title not competent to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has no right, title not competent to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. or interest in the suit property. 6. d in On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff has permanently settled in On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff has permanently settle On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff has permanently settle the United Kingdom and he never came to see his father Tara Singh, nor did he the United Kingdom and he never came to see his father Tara Singh, nor did he the United Kingdom and he never came to see his father Tara Singh, nor did he the United Kingdom and he never came to see his father Tara Singh, nor did he look after or maintain him. Tara Singh, since deceased, was living with the look after or maintain him. Tara Singh, since deceased, was living with the look after or maintain him. Tara Singh, since deceased, was living with the look after or maintain him. Tara Singh, since deceased, was living with the defendants, and it was they who took care of him in his old age. Husband of defendants, and it was they who took care of him in his old age. Husband of defendants, and it was they who took care of him in his old age. Husband of defendants, and it was they who took care of him in his old age. Husband of pal Kaur, had expired in the year 1994, and thereafter Tara defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur, had expired in the year 1994, and thereafter Tara pal Kaur, had expired in the year 1994, and thereafter Tara defendant No. 1, Sukh Singh was looked after and cared for by the defendants. Tara Singh was suffering Singh was looked after and cared for by the defendants. Tara Singh was suffering Singh was looked after and cared for by the defendants. Tara Singh was suffering Singh was looked after and cared for by the defendants. Tara Singh was suffering from breathing problems and was treated by the defendants. The plaintiff never from breathing problems and was treated by the defendants. The plaintiff never from breathing problems and was treated by the defendants. The plaintiff never from breathing problems and was treated by the defendants. The plaintiff never ingh in the hospital. It was the defendants who came to see his ailing father Tara Singh in the hospital. It was the defendants who ingh in the hospital. It was the defendants who came to see his ailing father Tara S performed the cremation and Bhog ceremony of Tara Singh. His last remains were performed the cremation and Bhog ceremony of Tara Singh. His last remains were performed the cremation and Bhog ceremony of Tara Singh. His last remains were performed the cremation and Bhog ceremony of Tara Singh. His last remains were also immersed at Kiratpur Sahib by defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. also immersed at Kiratpur Sahib by defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. also immersed at Kiratpur Sahib by defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. 7. account It was further pleaded that Tara Singh was holding a joint account It was further pleaded that Tara Singh was holding a joint It was further pleaded that Tara Singh was holding a joint with defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. Tara Singh treated defendant No. 1 as his with defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. Tara Singh treated defendant No. 1 as his with defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. Tara Singh treated defendant No. 1 as his with defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. Tara Singh treated defendant No. 1 as his gh executed law and defendants No. 2 and 3 as his grandsons. Tara Singh executed law and defendants No. 2 and 3 as his grandsons. Tara Sin daughter-in-law and defendants No. 2 and 3 as his grandsons. Tara Sin in favour of the defendants out of his free a valid registered Will dated 22.06.1999 in favour of the defendants out of his free in favour of the defendants out of his free a valid registered W and sound disposing mind, thereby making them the owners of the suit will and sound disposing mind, thereby making them the owners of the suit and sound disposing mind, thereby making them the owners of the suit and sound disposing mind, thereby making them the owners of the suit property. On the basis of the said registered Will dated property. On the basis of the said registered 1999, the defendants ill dated 22.06.1999, the defendants became owners in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, dismissal of the became owners in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, dismissal of the became owners in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, dismissal of the became owners in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. suit was prayed for. 8. The plaintiff filed replication wherein he reiterated the averments The plaintiff filed replication wherein he reiterated the averments The plaintiff filed replication wherein he reiterated the averments The plaintiff filed replication wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied those of the written statement. made in the plaint and denied those of the written statement. made in the plaint and denied those of the written statement. 9. re framed by From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues we From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues we the learned trial Court: the learned trial C TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -4- - 1. f is entitled to the relief of declaration that Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that f is entitled to the relief of declaration that he is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, being the only he is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, being the only he is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, being the only he is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, being the only I legal heir of late Tara Singh? OPP Class-I legal heir of late Tara Singh? OPP Class 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP prayed for? OPP 3. No. 1 is not proved, whether in the alternative the If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether in the alternative the No. 1 is not proved, whether in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land? OPP plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land? OPP plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the C ourt with clean plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands as he has suppressed material facts from the Court? OPD hands as he has suppressed material facts from the hands as he has suppressed material facts from the 5. r defendants No. 2 and 3 are minors and, therefore, the Whether defendants No. 2 and 3 are minors and, therefore, the r defendants No. 2 and 3 are minors and, therefore, the present suit could not be filed against them? OPD present suit could not be filed against them? OPD present suit could not be filed against them? OPD 6. Whether late Tara Singh executed a legal and valid registered Whether late Tara Singh executed a legal and valid registered Whether late Tara Singh executed a legal and valid registered 1999 in favour of the defendants? OPD will dated 22.06.1999 in favour of the defendants? OPD will dated 7. Relief. 10. rove his case, the plaintiff entered the witness box as In order to prove his case, the plaintiff entered the witness box as rove his case, the plaintiff entered the witness box as In order to p PW1 and examined himself as his own witness, and thereafter closed his evidence. PW1 and examined himself as his own witness, and thereafter closed his evidence. PW1 and examined himself as his own witness, and thereafter closed his evidence. PW1 and examined himself as his own witness, and thereafter closed his evidence. 11. On the other hand, defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur, examined herself On the other hand, defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur, examined herself On the other hand, defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur, examined herself On the other hand, defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur, examined herself ill, and as DW1 besides examining DW2 Amarjit Singh, attesting witness of the Will, and as DW1 besides examining DW2 Amarjit Singh, att as DW1 besides examining DW2 Amarjit Singh, att DW3 Joginder Singh. The defendants also tendered in evidence documents Ex. DX DW3 Joginder Singh. The defendants also tendered in evidence documents Ex. DX DW3 Joginder Singh. The defendants also tendered in evidence documents Ex. DX DW3 Joginder Singh. The defendants also tendered in evidence documents Ex. DX and Mark C to Mark F. Thereafter, the defendants closed their evidence. and Mark C to Mark F. Thereafter, the defendants closed their evidence. and Mark C to Mark F. Thereafter, the defendants closed their evidence. Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 12. ourt On conclusion of the evidence and arguments, the learned trial Court On conclusion of the evidence and arguments, the learned trial On conclusion of the evidence and arguments, the learned trial decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession in the alternative, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession in the alternative, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession in the alternative, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession in the alternative, while declining the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, vide judgment and while declining the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, vide judgment and while declining the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, vide judgment and while declining the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 10.08. 2010, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. 10.08.2010, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -5- - Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 13. The learned Lower Appellate Court The learned , after hearing counsel for the Lower Appellate Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, first dealt with the contention raised on behalf of the defendants that parties, first dealt with the contention raised on behalf of the defendants that parties, first dealt with the contention raised on behalf of the defendants that parties, first dealt with the contention raised on behalf of the defendants that 2 and 3 were minors and that no guardian had been appointed for defendants No. 2 and 3 were minors and that no guardian had been appointed for 2 and 3 were minors and that no guardian had been appointed for defendants No. them in the proceedings before the learned trial C them in the proceedings before the Court. 14. The he learned Lower Appellate Court , observed that defendant No. 1, Lower Appellate Court, observed that defendant No. 1, s No. 2 and 3, Sukhpal Kaur, the natural guardian and mother of minor defendants No. 2 and 3, Sukhpal Kaur, the natural guardian and mother of minor defendant Sukhpal Kaur, the natural guardian and mother of minor defendant had filed the joint written statement on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the had filed the joint written statement on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the had filed the joint written statement on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the had filed the joint written statement on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the ourt held that the rule minors and had contested the proceedings throughout. The Court held that the rule minors and had contested the proceedings throughout. The minors and had contested the proceedings throughout. The of appointment of next friend or guardian ad litem of appointment of next friend or guardian is for the protection of minor ad litem is for the protection of minor defendants, and that since their natural guardian had herself contested the defendants, and that since their natural guardian had herself contested the defendants, and that since their natural guardian had herself contested the defendants, and that since their natural guardian had herself contested the proceedings in her own interest as well as in the interest of the minors, the proceedings in her own interest as well as in the interest of the minors, the proceedings in her own interest as well as in the interest of the minors, the proceedings in her own interest as well as in the interest of the minors, the r observed representation of defendants No. 2 and 3 was substantial. It was further observed representation of defendants No. 2 and 3 was substantial. It was furthe representation of defendants No. 2 and 3 was substantial. It was furthe that Sukhpal Kaur had a common interest with the minors in the suit property, and that Sukhpal Kaur had a common interest with the minors in the suit property, and that Sukhpal Kaur had a common interest with the minors in the suit property, and that Sukhpal Kaur had a common interest with the minors in the suit property, and ill on their behalf as well as her own, and contested the suit to she had set up the Will on their behalf as well as her own, and contested the suit to ill on their behalf as well as her own, and contested the suit to she had set up the and the best of her ability. Being the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and the best of her ability. Being the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority the best of her ability. Being the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority Guardianship Act, she was competent to represent the minor defendants. Guardianship Act, she was competent to represent the minor defendants. Guardianship Act, she was competent to represent the minor defendants. Guardianship Act, she was competent to represent the minor defendants. Accordingly, the court concluded that the minors had been properly represented in Accordingly, the court concluded that the minors had been properly represented in Accordingly, the court concluded that the minors had been properly represented in Accordingly, the court concluded that the minors had been properly represented in the trial court proceedings and no prejudice had been caused to them. the trial court proceedings and no prejudice had been caused to them. the trial court proceedings and no prejudice had been caused to them. 15. Upon a careful appreciation of the evidence, the Upon a careful appreciat Lower ion of the evidence, the learned Lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the learned trial court that the W learned trial court that the Will ourt set up by the defendants was not free from suspicious circumstances. The Court set up by the defendants was not free from suspicious circumstances. The set up by the defendants was not free from suspicious circumstances. The noted that as per Ex.D1, the Will dated 22.06. noted that as per Ex.D1, the ara Singh, aged about 72 22.06.1999, Tara Singh, aged about 72 years at the time of execution, had disinherited his only son, Balbir Singh, without years at the time of execution, had disinherited his only son, Balbir Singh, without years at the time of execution, had disinherited his only son, Balbir Singh, without years at the time of execution, had disinherited his only son, Balbir Singh, without ourt observed that ordinarily a father would not ssigning any valid reason. The Court observed that ordinarily a father would not ourt observed that ordinarily a father would not assigning any valid reason. The C TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -6- - tances, and that exclude his only son from inheritance without compelling circumstances, and that exclude his only son from inheritance without compelling circums exclude his only son from inheritance without compelling circums no such circumstances had been shown in the present case. There was no evidence no such circumstances had been shown in the present case. There was no evidence no such circumstances had been shown in the present case. There was no evidence no such circumstances had been shown in the present case. There was no evidence on record of any estrangement, bad blood, or litigation between the plaintiff and on record of any estrangement, bad blood, or litigation between the plaintiff and on record of any estrangement, bad blood, or litigation between the plaintiff and on record of any estrangement, bad blood, or litigation between the plaintiff and his father Tara Singh. The only ground suggested was that the plaintiff resided his father Tara Singh. The only ground suggested was that the plaintiff resid his father Tara Singh. The only ground suggested was that the plaintiff resid his father Tara Singh. The only ground suggested was that the plaintiff resid abroad, which by itself was not a valid reason to disinherit him. abroad, which by itself was not a valid reason to disinherit him. abroad, which by itself was not a valid reason to disinherit him. 16. ourt further found that the disposition under Ex.D1 was The Court further found that the disposition under Ex.D1 was ourt further found that the disposition under Ex.D1 was The C unnatural and improbable, and that where a disposition appears unnatural, it raises unnatural and improbable, and that where a disposition appears unnatural, it raises unnatural and improbable, and that where a disposition appears unnatural, it raises unnatural and improbable, and that where a disposition appears unnatural, it raises strong suspicion which the propounder of the strong suspicion which the propounder ill must dispel. The defendants, of the Will must dispel. The defendants, ill, had failed to discharge this burden. The being the beneficiaries under the Will, had failed to discharge this burden. The ill, had failed to discharge this burden. The being the beneficiaries under th ourt also found that there was no documentary evidence to prove that Tara Singh Court also found that there was no documentary evidence to prove that Tara Singh ourt also found that there was no documentary evidence to prove that Tara Singh ourt also found that there was no documentary evidence to prove that Tara Singh medical evidence to show that ever resided with the defendants, nor was there any medical evidence to show that ever resided with the defendants, nor was there any ever resided with the defendants, nor was there any they had treated him during illness. On the contrary, defendant No. 1 Sukhpal Kaur they had treated him during illness. On the contrary, defendant No. 1 Sukhpal Kaur they had treated him during illness. On the contrary, defendant No. 1 Sukhpal Kaur they had treated him during illness. On the contrary, defendant No. 1 Sukhpal Kaur herself admitted that Tara Singh used to cultivate his land during his lifetime. herself admitted that Tara Singh used to cultivate his land during his lifetime. herself admitted that Tara Singh used to cultivate his land during his lifetime. 17. The Court also observed that the second attesting witness The C , Harinder ourt also observed that the second attesting witness, Harinder , had not been examined, and that even DW2 Amarjit Singh did not depose Pattar, had not been examined, and that even DW2 Amarjit Singh did not depose , had not been examined, and that even DW2 Amarjit Singh did not depose , had not been examined, and that even DW2 Amarjit Singh did not depose that Harinder Pattar had attested the W ill in his presence or in the presence of Tara Pattar had attested the Will in his presence or in the presence of Tara ill in his presence or in the presence of Tara Singh. His testimony was totally silent on this aspect. Further, the scribe of the Singh. His testimony was totally silent on this aspect. Further, the scribe of the Singh. His testimony was totally silent on this aspect. Further, the scribe of the Singh. His testimony was totally silent on this aspect. Further, the scribe of the ill was also not examined. Thus, the requirement of attestation by two witnesses Will was also not examined. Thus, the requirement of attestation by two witnesses ill was also not examined. Thus, the requirement of attestation by two witnesses ill was also not examined. Thus, the requirement of attestation by two witnesses was not duly proved. in terms of Section 63 of the Succession Act was not duly proved. in terms of Section 63 of the Succession Act 18. In these circumstances, the Lower Appellate Court In these circumstances, the Lower Appellate Court held that the W held that the Will Ex.D1 dated 22.06. 1999 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and had not 22.06.1999 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and had not 1999 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and had not ourt therefore been proved to have been validly executed by Tara Singh. The Court therefore been proved to have been validly executed by Tara Singh. The been proved to have been validly executed by Tara Singh. The concurred with the urt that the defendants had failed to establish the rred with the learned trial Court that the defendants had failed to establish the urt that the defendants had failed to establish the validity of the W Will. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -7- - 19. Consequently, the Court upheld the finding of the learned trial C Consequently, the C ourt pheld the finding of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff, being the sole Class-I heir of Tara Singh, was entitled t that the plaintiff, being the sole Class o inherit I heir of Tara Singh, was entitled to inherit ince it was further found that the plaintiff was the suit property. It further held that since it was further found that the plaintiff was ince it was further found that the plaintiff was the suit property. not in possession of the suit property, the trial court had rightly granted the decree not in possession of the suit property, the trial court had rightly granted the decree not in possession of the suit property, the trial court had rightly granted the decree not in possession of the suit property, the trial court had rightly granted the decree relief of of declaration and possession in the alternative, while declining the relief of of declaration and possession in the alternative, while declining the of declaration and possession in the alternative, while declining the injunction. The appeal filed by the defendants was thus dismissed. injunction. The appeal filed by the defendants was thus dismissed. injunction. The appeal filed by the defendants was thus dismissed. 20. Feeling aggrieved the appellants challenge the impugned judgments Feeling aggrieved the appellants challenge the impugned judgments Feeling aggrieved the appellants challenge the impugned judgments Feeling aggrieved the appellants challenge the impugned judgments and decrees dated 10.8.2010 dated 10.8.2010 and 8.9.2012 of the , in this Regular of the Courts below, in this Regular Second Appeal. Second Appeal. 21. Upon notice, respondent appeared and contested the appeal. Upon notice, respondent appeared and contested the appeal. Upon notice, respondent appeared and contested the appeal.
Legal Reasoning
Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is well settled that although the Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is well settled that although the Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is well settled that although the Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is well settled that although the examination of one law requires a Will to be attested by at least two witnesses, the examination of one law requires a Will to be attested by at least two witnesses, the law requires a Will to be attested by at least two witnesses, the attesting witness is sufficient to prove its due execution, provided that such witness attesting witness is sufficient to prove its due execution, provided that such witness attesting witness is sufficient to prove its due execution, provided that such witness attesting witness is sufficient to prove its due execution, provided that such witness unequivocally supports the execution and attestation of the Will. The non- unequivocally supports the execution and attestation of the Will. The non unequivocally supports the execution and attestation of the Will. The non unequivocally supports the execution and attestation of the Will. The non examination of the other attesting witness does not vitiate the proof of the examination of the other attesting witness does not vitiate the proof of the examination of the other attesting witness does not vitiate the proof of the examination of the other attesting witness does not vitiate the proof of the document, so long as the statutory requirement of examining one attesting witness document, so long as the statutory requirement of examining one attesting witness document, so long as the statutory requirement of examining one attesting witness document, so long as the statutory requirement of examining one attesting witness stands satisfied. 42. law does not mandate This Court has no hesitation in holding that the law does not mandate This Court has no hesitation in holding that the This Court has no hesitation in holding that the the examination of the scribe of the Will as a condition precedent for proving its the examination of the scribe of the Will as a condition precedent for proving the examination of the scribe of the Will as a condition precedent for proving the examination of the scribe of the Will as a condition precedent for proving due execution. What is material is the compliance with Section 63 of the Indian due execution. What is material is the compliance with Section 63 of the Indian due execution. What is material is the compliance with Section 63 of the Indian due execution. What is material is the compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and once an attesting witness Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and once an attesting witness Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and once an attesting witness Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and once an attesting witness has duly proved the execution and attestation of the Will, the mere non- has duly proved the execution and attestation of the Will, the mere non has duly proved the execution and attestation of the Will, the mere non has duly proved the execution and attestation of the Will, the mere non scribe does not cast any doubt on its validity. examination of the scribe does not cast any doubt on its validity. examination of the 43. It is relevant to mention here that plaintiff has taken contradictory It is relevant to mention here that plaintiff has taken contradictory It is relevant to mention here that plaintiff has taken contradictory It is relevant to mention here that plaintiff has taken contradictory pleas regarding the execution of the will. The plaintiff’s charges on the one hand pleas regarding the execution of the will. The plaintiff’s charges on the one hand pleas regarding the execution of the will. The plaintiff’s charges on the one hand pleas regarding the execution of the will. The plaintiff’s charges on the one hand peared in place of testator), and speak of impersonation (i.e., some other person appeared in place of testator), and speak of impersonation (i.e., some other person ap speak of impersonation (i.e., some other person ap on the other hand of undue influence being exercised upon the testator. These two on the other hand of undue influence being exercised upon the testator. These two on the other hand of undue influence being exercised upon the testator. These two on the other hand of undue influence being exercised upon the testator. These two lines of attack are inconsistent and, crucially, none is supported by material lines of attack are inconsistent and, crucially, none is supported by material lines of attack are inconsistent and, crucially, none is supported by material lines of attack are inconsistent and, crucially, none is supported by material credible evidence such as medical records, contemporaneous conduct, or credible evidence such as medical records, contemporaneous conduct, or evidence such as medical records, contemporaneous conduct, or eyewitness account. The plaintiff has failed to produce any medical evidence to eyewitness account. The plaintiff has failed to produce any medical evidence to eyewitness account. The plaintiff has failed to produce any medical evidence to eyewitness account. The plaintiff has failed to produce any medical evidence to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -16- - show the testator lacked testamentary capacity, and has failed to show any show the testator lacked testamentary capacity, and has failed to show any show the testator lacked testamentary capacity, and has failed to show any show the testator lacked testamentary capacity, and has failed to show any evidence of undue influence or impersonation. evidence of undue influence or impersonation. 44. The Court cannot ignore the fact that th The e testator lived for months ourt cannot ignore the fact that the testator lived for months His longevity after the execution of after execution of Ex.D1 (till October 2003). His longevity after the execution of His longevity after the execution of after execution of Ex.D1 (till October 2003) will militates strongly against an assumption that he was of unsound mind on the will militates strongly against an assumption that he was of unsound mind on the will militates strongly against an assumption that he was of unsound mind on the will militates strongly against an assumption that he was of unsound mind on the date of execution. date of execution. 45. Moreover, Moreover, in relation to registered W ill and presumption of registered Will and presumption of genuineness, the Court finds that t , the Court finds that the instrument Ex.D1 is a registered W ill and strument Ex.D1 is a registered Will and registration raises a strong presumption of genuineness. The presumption which is registration raises a strong presumption of genuineness. The presumption which is registration raises a strong presumption of genuineness. The presumption which is registration raises a strong presumption of genuineness. The presumption which is ll to show suspicious shifts the burden on the party attacking the Will to show suspicious shifts the burden on the party attacking t rebuttable, shifts the burden on the party attacking t circumstances. The plaintiff has not placed on record cogent circumstances circumstances. The plaintiff has not placed on record cogent circumstances circumstances. The plaintiff has not placed on record cogent circumstances circumstances. The plaintiff has not placed on record cogent circumstances The reasoning finds corroboration from the sufficient to rebut that presumption. The reasoning finds corroboration from the The reasoning finds corroboration from the sufficient to rebut that presumption. Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead) and Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Others Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by LRs s Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by LRs [2025 INSC 879 wherein the Hon’ble 2025 INSC 879] wherein the Hon’ble Court affirmed the trial Court’s decision in para 9 as below Court affirmed the trial Court’s decision in para 9 as below-mentioned:- The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption “The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption Court accepted the execution regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution regarding genuineness thereof. The trial regarding genuineness thereof. The trial of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof.” its existence thereof gh a This Court is persuaded to hold that it is well settled that although a This Court is persuaded to hold that it is This Court is persuaded to hold that it is Will is not compulsorily registerable under law, yet its registration carries a Will is not compulsorily registerable under law, yet its registration carries a Will is not compulsorily registerable under law, yet its registration carries a Will is not compulsorily registerable under law, yet its registration carries a presumption of genuineness in favour of the document. The fact of registration, presumption of genuineness in favour of the document. The fact of registration, presumption of genuineness in favour of the document. The fact of registration, presumption of genuineness in favour of the document. The fact of registration, coupled with the endorsement of the registering authority, lends assurance to the coupled with the endorsement of the registering authority, lends assurance to the coupled with the endorsement of the registering authority, lends assurance to the coupled with the endorsement of the registering authority, lends assurance to the disposing state of mind of the testator at the time of execution, and acts sound and disposing state of mind of the testator at the time of execution, and acts disposing state of mind of the testator at the time of execution, and acts disposing state of mind of the testator at the time of execution, and acts TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -17- - as an additional circumstance dispelling suspicion surrounding the Will. While as an additional circumstance dispelling suspicion surrounding the Will. While as an additional circumstance dispelling suspicion surrounding the Will. While as an additional circumstance dispelling suspicion surrounding the Will. While registration does not detract from its validity, registration, where available, non-registration does not detract from its validity, registration, where available, registration does not detract from its validity, registration, where available, registration does not detract from its validity, registration, where available, r in proving its due execution. serves as a valuable corroborative factor in proving its due execution. serves as a valua 46. On weighing probabilities, the combination of (i) Ex.D1 being On weighing probabilities, the combination of (i) Ex.D1 being On weighing probabilities, the combination of (i) Ex.D1 being On weighing probabilities, the combination of (i) Ex.D1 being 2 who attested the will, (iii) registered, (ii) the credible testimony of DW-2 who attested the will, (iii) registered, (ii) the credible testimony of DW registered, (ii) the credible testimony of DW admissions by PW-1 about his long absence abr admissions by PW involvement in the 1 about his long absence abroad and non-involvement in the testator’s final days, and (iv) absence of convincing, cogent evidence of testator’s final days, and (iv) absence of convincing, cogent evidence of testator’s final days, and (iv) absence of convincing, cogent evidence of testator’s final days, and (iv) absence of convincing, cogent evidence of impersonation/undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity, persuades this impersonation/undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity, persuades this impersonation/undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity, persuades this impersonation/undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity, persuades this been Court that the presumption in favour of the genuineness of Ex.D1 has not been Court that the presumption in favour of the genuineness of Ex.D1 has not Court that the presumption in favour of the genuineness of Ex.D1 has not successfully displaced by the plaintiff. successfully displaced by the plaintiff. 47. Lower Appellate On the point of the natural guardian/minors, the Lower Appellate On the point of the natural guardian/minors, the On the point of the natural guardian/minors, the correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written Court correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written defendants. No substantial statement and contested the suit on behalf of the minor defendants. No substantial statement and contested the suit on behalf of the minor statement and contested the suit on behalf of the minor prejudice to the minors appears on record; this limb of attack is without merit. prejudice to the minors appears on record; this limb of attack is without merit. prejudice to the minors appears on record; this limb of attack is without merit. On the above premises, the impugned findings that Ex.D1 is surrounded 48. On the above premises, the impugned findings that Ex.D1 is surrounded On the above premises, the impugned findings that Ex.D1 is surrounded On the above premises, the impugned findings that Ex.D1 is surrounded anted to plaintiff by suspicious circumstances are unsustainable and the decree granted to plaintiff by suspicious circumstances are unsustainable and the decree gr by suspicious circumstances are unsustainable and the decree gr should be set aside. The registered will should be accepted as genuine. should be set aside. The registered will should be accepted as genuine. should be set aside. The registered will should be accepted as genuine. 49. On the point of the natural guardian/minors, t On the point Lower Appellate of the natural guardian/minors, the Lower Appellate correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written Court correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written correctly observed that Sukhpal Kaur as natural guardian filed joint written d contested the suit on behalf of the minor defendants. No substantial statement and contested the suit on behalf of the minor defendants. No substantial d contested the suit on behalf of the minor defendants. No substantial d contested the suit on behalf of the minor defendants. No substantial prejudice to the minors appears on record; this limb of attack is without merit. prejudice to the minors appears on record; this limb of attack is without merit. prejudice to the minors appears on record; this limb of attack is without merit. Conclusion 50. For the reasons recorded above: For the reasons recorded above: 1. The registered will Ex.D1 dated 22.6.1999 propounded by the The registered will Ex.D1 dated 22.6.1999 propounded by the The registered will Ex.D1 dated 22.6.1999 propounded by the defendants has been satisfactorily proved on the record by the defendants has been satisfactorily proved on the record by the defendants has been satisfactorily proved on the record by the defendants has been satisfactorily proved on the record by the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -18- - 2 Amarjit Singh) and by the testimony of an attesting witness (DW-2 Amarjit Singh) and by the testimony of an attesting witness (DW testimony of an attesting witness (DW fact of registration. The presumption of genuineness that arises from fact of registration. The presumption of genuineness that arises fr fact of registration. The presumption of genuineness that arises fr fact of registration. The presumption of genuineness that arises fr registration and the credible oral testimony has not been displaced by registration and the credible oral testimony has not been displaced by registration and the credible oral testimony has not been displaced by registration and the credible oral testimony has not been displaced by the plaintiff. the plaintiff. 2. The concurrent findings of the courts below rejecting Ex.D1 as The concurrent findings of the courts below rejecting Ex.D1 as The concurrent findings of the courts below rejecting Ex.D1 as tainted by suspicious circumstances are unsustainable on the record tainted by suspicious circumstances are unsustainable on the record tainted by suspicious circumstances are unsustainable on the record tainted by suspicious circumstances are unsustainable on the record proved impersonation or undue because (a) the plaintiff has not proved impersonation or undue because (a) the plaintiff has not because (a) the plaintiff has not influence or lack of testamentary capacity with cogent material, and influence or lack of testamentary capacity with cogent material, and influence or lack of testamentary capacity with cogent material, and influence or lack of testamentary capacity with cogent material, and examination of the second attesting witness and scribe is (b) the non-examination of the second attesting witness and scribe is examination of the second attesting witness and scribe is (b) the non not in the circumstances fatal. not in the circumstances fatal. 3. The Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. impugned judgments and decrees dated 10.8.2010 (trial court) and impugned judgments and decrees dated 10.8.2010 (trial court) and impugned judgments and decrees dated 10.8.2010 (trial court) and impugned judgments and decrees dated 10.8.2010 (trial court) and 8.9.2012 (lower appellate court) are set aside. 8.9.2012 (lower appellate court) are set aside. 8.9.2012 (lower appellate court) are set aside. 4. The plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession is dismissed. The plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession is dismissed. The plaintiff’s suit for declaration and possession is dismissed. 51.
Arguments
appellants Submissions of learned counsel for the appellants Submissions of learned counsel for the 22. is argued that finding of the Courts below that “no reason f is argued that finding of the C It is argued that finding of the C ourts below that “no reason for has been given is wholly unsustainable. On disinheriting the plaintiff -Balbir Singh has been given is wholly unsustainable. On has been given is wholly unsustainable. On disinheriting the plaintiff the admitted facts the admitted facts the admitted facts the admitted facts the the the the testator testator testator testator lived with and was cared for by lived with and was cared for by lived with and was cared for by lived with and was cared for by the the the the plaintiff had been defendants in his old age while the respondent/plaintiff had been defendants in his old age while the appellants/defendants in his old age while the residing abroad for decades, those background facts constitute a va residing abroad for decades lid explanation those background facts constitute a valid explanation for the testator’s disposition. for the testator’s disposition. 23. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the ) dated ourts below erred in holding that the registered Will (Ex.D1) dated ourts below erred in holding that the registered learned Courts below erred in holding that the registered 22.6.1999 was not proved merely because was not proved merely because one of the atte Harinder one of the attesting witnesses-Harinder Pattar was not examined. The ill is a registered instrument and the mandatory was not examined. The Will is a registered instrument and the mandatory ill is a registered instrument and the mandatory proof under Section 68 of the Evidence Act was complied with by examining one proof under Section 68 of the Evidence Act was complied with by examining one proof under Section 68 of the Evidence Act was complied with by examining one proof under Section 68 of the Evidence Act was complied with by examining one attesting witness g witness DW-2 Amarjit Singh. Non attesting on-examination of the co-attesting witness was not fatal in the circumstances of the case. witness was not fatal in the circumstances of the case. witness was not fatal in the circumstances of the case. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -8- - 24. t is further contended that the lower C It is fu ourts misapplied the legal rther contended that the lower Courts misapplied the legal strict requirement that both attesting witnesses must standards laying down an over-strict requirement that both attesting witnesses must strict requirement that both attesting witnesses must standards laying down an over be examined and must have signed the Will in be examined and must each other’s presence and in the ill in each other’s presence and in the simultaneous presence of the testator; there is no such rigid requirement in law and simultaneous presence of the testator; there is no such rigid requirement in law and simultaneous presence of the testator; there is no such rigid requirement in law and simultaneous presence of the testator; there is no such rigid requirement in law and the lower courts wrongly went beyond pleadings in this regard. the lower courts wrongly went beyond pleadings in this regard. the lower courts wrongly went beyond pleadings in this regard. 25. further submitted that the trial court’s and appellate further submitted that the trial court’s and appellat Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court’s and appellat Learned counsel court’s adverse reliance on “suspicious circumstances” that were never pleaded or court’s adverse reliance on “suspicious circumstances” that were never pleaded or court’s adverse reliance on “suspicious circumstances” that were never pleaded or court’s adverse reliance on “suspicious circumstances” that were never pleaded or established (for example, alleged absence of documentary proof of residence and established (for example, alleged absence of documentary proof of residence and established (for example, alleged absence of documentary proof of residence and established (for example, alleged absence of documentary proof of residence and medical bills) is unjustified; mere absence of documents of certain kinds cannot medical bills) is unjustified; mere absence of documents of certain kinds cannot medical bills) is unjustified; mere absence of documents of certain kinds cannot medical bills) is unjustified; mere absence of documents of certain kinds cannot e positive testimony and the registered nature of Ex.D1. displace the positive testimony and the registered nature of Ex.D1. e positive testimony and the registered nature of Ex.D1. 26. ourts below failed to appreciate that registration of the The Courts below failed to appreciate that registration of the ourts below failed to appreciate that registration of the The instrument gives rise to a strong presumption in favour of genuineness, and that the instrument gives rise to a strong presumption in favour of genuineness, and that the instrument gives rise to a strong presumption in favour of genuineness, and that the instrument gives rise to a strong presumption in favour of genuineness, and that the burden to establish suspicious circumstances lies burden to establish suspicious circumstances l ies on the party assailing the will, on the party assailing the will, a burden which the plaintiff failed to discharge. burden which the plaintiff failed to discharge. 27. ourts below overlooked material admissions in The learned Courts below overlooked material admissions in The learned the cross-examination of PW in particular his admission about delay in examination of PW-1- plaintiff in particular his admission about delay in in particular his admission about delay in arrival of son of tes participation in last rites/cremation, his participation in last rites/cremation, of son of testator, lack of his participation in last rites/cremation, t his longtime residence abroad, ignorance about who lit the pyre, admissions about his longtime residence abroad, ignorance about who lit the pyre, admissions abou ignorance about who lit the pyre, admissions abou all of which go to show the plausibility of the testator’s making a will in favour of all of which go to show the plausibility of the testator’s making a will in favour of all of which go to show the plausibility of the testator’s making a will in favour of all of which go to show the plausibility of the testator’s making a will in favour of those who actually looked after him. those who actually looked 28. ourts below erred in holding that the suit was The learned Courts below erred in holding that the suit was ourts below erred in holding that the suit was The learned C maintainable against minor defendants without adequate representation. I maintainable against minor defendants wi n any thout adequate representation. In any event the natural guardian had contested the suit on their behalf and no prejudice is event the natural guardian had contested the suit on their behalf and no prejudice is event the natural guardian had contested the suit on their behalf and no prejudice is event the natural guardian had contested the suit on their behalf and no prejudice is shown. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -9- - Submission of learned counsel for the Respondent Submission of learned counsel for the Respondent Submission of learned counsel for the Respondent 29. grounds of Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the grounds of Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the appeal and urged that it is a case of unnatural disposition. appeal and urged ill (Ex.D1) t is a case of unnatural disposition. The Will (Ex.D1) disinherits the only natural Class s the only natural Class-I heir, the plaintiff which is an unnatural and the plaintiff, which is an unnatural and improbable disposition and therefore attracts suspicious circumstances. Ordinarily improbable disposition and therefore attracts suspicious circumstances. Ordinarily improbable disposition and therefore attracts suspicious circumstances. Ordinarily improbable disposition and therefore attracts suspicious circumstances. Ordinarily no such a father does not disinherit his only son without compelling reasons and no such a father does not disinherit his only son without compelling reasons a father does not disinherit his only son without compelling reasons reasons are on record. reasons are on record. 30. encies in proof and It is further contended that there are deficiencies in proof and It is further contended that there It is further contended that there e defendants Ex.D1 purportedly has two attesting witnesses but the defendants Ex.D1 purportedly has two attesting witnesses but th attestation. Ex.D1 purportedly has two attesting witnesses but th produced only one i.e. DW-2 Amarjit Singh in evidence produced only one i.e. DW , the other in evidence. Harinder Pattar, the other been given. The attesting witness, was not examined and no cogent explanation has been given. The attesting witness, was not examined and no cogent explanation has attesting witness, was not examined and no cogent explanation has testimony of DW-2 is silent about the presence and attestation by Harinder testimony of DW Pattar 2 is silent about the presence and attestation by Harinder Pattar i.e., DW-2 did not state that Harinder 2 did not state that Harinder Pattar also attested the W her presence also attested the Will in her presence lacunae the presence of the testator. Scribe was also not examined. These lacunae the presence of the testator. Scribe was also not examined. These and in the presence of the testator. Scribe was also not examined. These impair the credibility of the propounded W credibility of the propounded Will. 31. of supporting documentary It is further submitted that there is absence of supporting documentary It is further submitted that there is a It is further submitted that there is a The defendants failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the proof. The defendants failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the The defendants failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the The defendants failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the testator habitually resided with them as no ration card testator habitually resided with them , no voter card in their favour tion card, no voter card in their favour medical bills or hospital records to show sustained treatment by the defendants or medical bills or hospital records to show sustained treatment by the defendants medical bills or hospital records to show sustained treatment by the defendants medical bills or hospital records to show sustained treatment by the defendants . The absence of such corroborative material weakens the has been produced. The absence of such corroborative material weakens the . The absence of such corroborative material weakens the has been produced defendants’ case. defendants’ case. 32. plaintiff further argued that Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further argued that Learned counsel for the respondent/ Learned counsel for the respondent/ possibility of forgery/impersonation/undue influence cannot be ruled out. The possibility of forgery/impersonation/undue influence cannot be ruled out. T possibility of forgery/impersonation/undue influence cannot be ruled out. T possibility of forgery/impersonation/undue influence cannot be ruled out. T plaint pleads that Ex.D1 was procured by impersonation and undue influence and plaint pleads that Ex.D1 was procured by impersonation and undue influence and plaint pleads that Ex.D1 was procured by impersonation and undue influence and plaint pleads that Ex.D1 was procured by impersonation and undue influence and ot rebutted that the testator lacked testamentary capacity. The defendants have not rebutted that the testator lacked testamentary capacity. The defendants have n that the testator lacked testamentary capacity. The defendants have n TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -10- - these allegations by cogent evidence. The onus is on the propounder to show these allegations by cogent evidence. The onus is on the propounder to show these allegations by cogent evidence. The onus is on the propounder to show these allegations by cogent evidence. The onus is on the propounder to show freeness of will and due execution. M eness of will and due execution. Mere registration and a single attesting ere registration of Will and a single attesting witness are insufficient where suspicious circumstances exist. witness are insufficient where suspicious circumstances exist. witness are insufficient where suspicious circumstances exist. 33. a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the The plaintiff relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the The plaintiff Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Others case of Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Others Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Others Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Others 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 715 which hold that the W 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 715 ill must be properly attested and which hold that the Will must be properly attested and will unless the propounder that suspicious circumstances will invalidate a will unless the propounder that suspicious circumstances will invalidate a that suspicious circumstances will invalidate a sufficiently explains them. It was argued that the lower courts correctly held Ex.D1 sufficiently explains them. It was argued that the lower courts correctly held Ex.D1 sufficiently explains them. It was argued that the lower courts correctly held Ex.D1 sufficiently explains them. It was argued that the lower courts correctly held Ex.D1 to be suspicious and their concurrent findings deserve to be upheld. to be suspicious and their concurrent findings deserve to be upheld. to be suspicious and their concurrent findings deserve to be upheld. Findings 34. This Court has considered the respective contentions of This C learned ourt has considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as concurrent findings counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as concurrent findings counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as concurrent findings counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as concurrent findings of the courts below. of the courts below. 35. Regarding disinheritance of only son by the testator, being unnatural. Regarding disinheritance of only son by the testator, being unnatural. Regarding disinheritance of only son by the testator, being unnatural. Regarding disinheritance of only son by the testator, being unnatural. it is here by submitted that the testator, Tara Singh, was an elderly man about 72 it is here by submitted that the testator, Tara Singh, was an elderly man about 72 it is here by submitted that the testator, Tara Singh, was an elderly man about 72 it is here by submitted that the testator, Tara Singh, was an elderly man about 72 years at the time of Ex.D1 and had no near relatives to look after him. It is not years at the time of Ex.D1 and had no near relatives to look after him. It is not years at the time of Ex.D1 and had no near relatives to look after him. It is not years at the time of Ex.D1 and had no near relatives to look after him. It is not fe was deceased and his only son,the plaintiff, had settled disputed that his wife was deceased and his only son,the plaintiff, had settled fe was deceased and his only son,the plaintiff, had settled disputed that his wi abroad for many years. The evidence of DW-1 Sukhpal Kaur and DW abroad for many years. The evidence of DW 3 Joginder 1 Sukhpal Kaur and DW-3 Joginder Singh shows that the defendants looked after the testator during his last years. Singh shows that the defendants looked after the testator during his last years. Singh shows that the defendants looked after the testator during his last years. Singh shows that the defendants looked after the testator during his last years. background facts are relevant and They provided care and treatment. These background facts are relevant and background facts are relevant and They provided care and treatment. These legitimate considerations for the testator to execute a will in favour of those who legitimate considerations for the testator to execute a will in favour of those who legitimate considerations for the testator to execute a will in favour of those who legitimate considerations for the testator to execute a will in favour of those who examination that he was resident abroad nursed him. PW-1 has admitted in cross-examination that he was resident abroad examination that he was resident abroad nursed him. PW r in his illness; that he for a very long period; that he did not attend to his father in his illness; that he for a very long period; that he did not attend to his fathe for a very long period; that he did not attend to his fathe came to India three weeks after the death and that he did not know who lit the pyre. came to India three weeks after the death and that he did not know who lit the pyre. came to India three weeks after the death and that he did not know who lit the pyre. came to India three weeks after the death and that he did not know who lit the pyre. He did not bring his father to UK. He did not produce medical bills or other He did not bring his father to UK. He did not produce medical bills or other He did not bring his father to UK. He did not produce medical bills or other He did not bring his father to UK. He did not produce medical bills or other TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -11- - documentary proof documentary proof documentary proof documentary proof to contradict defendants’ claim of caregiving. These to contradict defendants’ claim of caregiving. The to contradict defendants’ claim of caregiving. The to contradict defendants’ claim of caregiving. The admissions fatally undermine the plaintiff’s allegation that the will is a product of admissions fatally undermine the plaintiff’s allegation that the will is a product of admissions fatally undermine the plaintiff’s allegation that the will is a product of admissions fatally undermine the plaintiff’s allegation that the will is a product of forgery/impersonation/undue influence. Background facts justify disposition. forgery/impersonation/undue influence. The Background facts justify disposition. The legal maxim is that the testator’s motive is a matter for consideration. legal maxim is that the testator’s motive is a matter for consideration. legal maxim is that the testator’s motive is a matter for consideration. legal maxim is that the testator’s motive is a matter for consideration. e of a distant son who has not discharged filial obligations and who Disinheritance of a distant son who has not discharged filial obligations and who e of a distant son who has not discharged filial obligations and who e of a distant son who has not discharged filial obligations and who has lived abroad for decades is not inherently unnatural when the son had has lived abroad for decades is not inherently unnatural when the son had has lived abroad for decades is not inherently unnatural when the son had has lived abroad for decades is not inherently unnatural when the son had effectively ceased performing filial duties and other near relatives provided care. effectively ceased performing filial duties and other near relatives provided care. effectively ceased performing filial duties and other near relatives provided care. effectively ceased performing filial duties and other near relatives provided care. The trial and appellate courts ignored these salient background facts. The trial and appellate court The trial and s ignored these salient background facts. The trial and appellate courts ought to have evaluated the W ill in that background. ts ought to have evaluated the Will in that background. 36. Support is derived from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Support is derived from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Support is derived from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Support is derived from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Savithri & Others Vs. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [2007(4) RCR (Civil) 749]. The Savithri & Others Vs. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [2007(4) RCR Savithri & Others Vs. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [2007(4) RCR Hon’ble Court in para 19 thereof observed as under:- Hon’ble Court in para 19 thereof observed as under: Hon’ble Court in para 19 thereof observed as under: 19. Deprivation of a due share by the natural heirs itself is not a “19. Deprivation of a due share by the natural heirs itself is not a 19. Deprivation of a due share by the natural heirs itself is not a 19. Deprivation of a due share by the natural heirs itself is not a factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious noticed hereinbefore, the circumstances. For the said purpose, as noticed hereinbefore, the circumstances. For the said purpose, as circumstances. For the said purpose, as background facts should also be taken into consideration. The son background facts should also be taken into consideration. The son background facts should also be taken into consideration. The son background facts should also be taken into consideration. The son was not meeting his father. He had not been attending to him. He was was not meeting his father. He had not been attending to him. He was was not meeting his father. He had not been attending to him. He was was not meeting his father. He had not been attending to him. He was not even meeting the expenses for his treatment from 1959, when he not even meeting the expenses for his treatment from 1959, when he not even meeting the expenses for his treatment from 1959, when he not even meeting the expenses for his treatment from 1959, when he in 1978. The testator was living with his lost his job till his death in 1978. The testator was living with his in 1978. The testator was living with his lost his job till his death sister and her children. If in that situation, if he executed a Will in sister and her children. If in that situation, if he executed a Will in sister and her children. If in that situation, if he executed a Will in sister and her children. If in that situation, if he executed a Will in their favour, no exception thereto can be taken. Even then, something their favour, no exception thereto can be taken. Even then, something their favour, no exception thereto can be taken. Even then, something their favour, no exception thereto can be taken. Even then, something was left for the appellant. was left for the appellant. ttled position of law, this Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and settled position of law, this Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and se Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and se I legal heir Court is of the considered view that there is nothing unnatural if a class-I legal heir Court is of the considered view that there is nothing unnatural if a class Court is of the considered view that there is nothing unnatural if a class is disinherited by the testator under a validly executed Will. The law recognizes the is disinherited by the testator under a validly executed Will. The law recognizes the is disinherited by the testator under a validly executed Will. The law recognizes the is disinherited by the testator under a validly executed Will. The law recognizes the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -12- - ordance with his wishes, and the of a testator to dispose off his property in accordance with his wishes, and the of a testator to dispose off his property in acc right of a testator to dispose off his property in acc mere exclusion of natural heir does not by itself render the Will suspicious or mere exclusion of natural heir does not by itself render the Will suspicious or mere exclusion of natural heir does not by itself render the Will suspicious or mere exclusion of natural heir does not by itself render the Will suspicious or of the testator and the due execution invalid. What is material is the free volition of the testator and the due execution of the testator and the due execution invalid. What is material is the free stand duly proved in the and attestation of the Will in accordance with law, which stand duly proved in the and attestation of the Will in accordance with law, which and attestation of the Will in accordance with law, which present case. 37. Coming to the finding of the Courts below that non Coming to the finding of the C examination of ourts below that non-examination of other attesting witness does not prove the due execution of the W other attesting witness does not and that both prove the due execution of the Will and that both imultaneously at same the attesting witnesses have not put their signatures on Will simultaneously at same the attesting witnesses have not put their signatures on Will s the attesting witnesses have not put their signatures on Will s his court does not find itself in in the presence of each other and testator. This court does not find itself in in the presence of each other and testator. T in the presence of each other and testator. T agreement with this .Proof by one attesting witness is sufficient under the agreement with this .Proof by one attesting witness is sufficient under the agreement with this .Proof by one attesting witness is sufficient under the agreement with this .Proof by one attesting witness is sufficient under the tion circumstances. While Section 63 of the Succession Act requires attestation, Section circumstances. While Section 63 of the Succession Act requires attestation, Sec circumstances. While Section 63 of the Succession Act requires attestation, Sec 68 of the Evidence Act permits proof of execution by examination of at least one 68 of the Evidence Act permits proof of execution by examination of at least one 68 of the Evidence Act permits proof of execution by examination of at least one 68 of the Evidence Act permits proof of execution by examination of at least one 2 Amarjit Singh, an attesting witness, attesting witness. In the present case DW-2 Amarjit Singh, an attesting witness, 2 Amarjit Singh, an attesting witness, attesting witness. In the present case DW was examined and has deposed to the formal execution of Ex.D1 in the presence of was examined and has deposed to the formal execution of Ex.D1 in the presence of was examined and has deposed to the formal execution of Ex.D1 in the presence of was examined and has deposed to the formal execution of Ex.D1 in the presence of the testator. The co ator. The co-attesting witness Harinder was resident abroad (Spain) attesting witness Harinder Pattar was resident abroad (Spain) production is explicable and not suspicious and could not be produced; this non-production is explicable and not suspicious production is explicable and not suspicious and could not be produced; this non per se. The law does not require that both attesting witnesses must be examined in per se. The law does not require that both attesting witnesses must be examined in per se. The law does not require that both attesting witnesses must be examined in per se. The law does not require that both attesting witnesses must be examined in registered every case Examination of one credible attesting witness and the registered every case Examination of one credible attesting witness and the every case Examination of one credible attesting witness and the instrument are adequate unless instrument are adequate unless instrument are adequate unless instrument are adequate unless the plaintiff points the plaintiff points the plaintiff points the plaintiff points to strong contrary to strong contrary to strong contrary to strong contrary examination of the second attesting witness is circumstances. The mere fact of non-examination of the second attesting witness is examination of the second attesting witness is circumstances. The mere fact of non not ipso facto fatal. not ipso facto fatal. 38. cessary. Similarly, evidence of scribe or simultaneous signing is not necessary. Similarly, evidence of scribe or sim Similarly, evidence of scribe or sim The defendants were not obliged to call the scribe or prove simultaneous signing in The defendants were not obliged to call the scribe or prove simultaneous signing in The defendants were not obliged to call the scribe or prove simultaneous signing in The defendants were not obliged to call the scribe or prove simultaneous signing in 2 has deposed to the the precise mechanical manner the lower courts required. DW-2 has deposed to the the precise mechanical manner the lower courts required. DW the precise mechanical manner the lower courts required. DW facts of execution; silence as to whether the other attesting witness signed facts of execution; silence as to whether the other attesting witness signed facts of execution; silence as to whether the other attesting witness signed facts of execution; silence as to whether the other attesting witness signed TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -13- - ltaneously” does not impeach the will. The lower courts erred in drawing an “simultaneously” does not impeach the will. The lower courts erred in drawing an ltaneously” does not impeach the will. The lower courts erred in drawing an ltaneously” does not impeach the will. The lower courts erred in drawing an adverse inference merely because the scribe or the second attesting witness was not adverse inference merely because the scribe or the second attesting witness was not adverse inference merely because the scribe or the second attesting witness was not adverse inference merely because the scribe or the second attesting witness was not examined when a reasonable explanation of foreign residence exists. examined when a reasonable explanation of foreign residence exists. examined when a reasonable explanation of foreign residence exists. 39. lso derived from the judgment of Hon’ble For this, support is also derived from the judgment of Hon’ble lso derived from the judgment of Hon’ble For this Ramabai Padamakar Patil (D) through LRs and Others Vs. Supreme Court in Ramabai Padamakar Patil (D) through LRs and Others Vs. Ramabai Padamakar Patil (D) through LRs and Others Vs. Supreme Court in . In para 5 of the said Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande [2003(4) RCR (Civi) 92. In para 5 of the said Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande [2003(4) RCR (Civi) 92 Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande [2003(4) RCR (Civi) 92 judgment, it has been held as under:- judgment, it has been held as under: “5. ………it will be useful to “5. briefly notice the legal position ………it will be useful to briefly notice the legal position of Indian regarding acceptance and proof of a Will. Section 63 of Indian regarding acceptance and proof of a Will. Section regarding acceptance and proof of a Will. Section Succession Act deals with execution of unprivileged Wills. It lays Succession Act deals with execution of unprivileged Wills. It lays Succession Act deals with execution of unprivileged Wills. It lays Succession Act deals with execution of unprivileged Wills. It lays l affix his mark to the Will or down that the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will or down that the testator shall sign or shal down that the testator shall sign or shal it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. It further lays down that the Will shall be attested by two or direction. It further lays down that the Will shall be attested by two or direction. It further lays down that the Will shall be attested by two or direction. It further lays down that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in his mark to the presence and by the direction of the testator and each of the the presence and by the direction of the testator and each of the the presence and by the direction of the testator and each of the the presence and by the direction of the testator and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator. witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator. witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator. witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator. vidence Act mandates examination of one attesting Section 68 of the Evidence Act mandates examination of one attesting vidence Act mandates examination of one attesting Section witness in proof of a Will, whether registered or not.” witness in proof of a Will, whether registered or not.” witness in proof of a Will, whether registered or not.” Ganesan A similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganesan A similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in A similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in where the (D) through LRs Vs. Kalanjiam and Others [2019(3) RCR (Civil) 843] where the (D) through LRs Vs. Kalanjiam and Others [2019(3) RCR (Civil) 843 (D) through LRs Vs. Kalanjiam and Others [2019(3) RCR (Civil) 843 Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that :- Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that : Where a testator asks a person to attest his Will, it is a reasonable “Where a testator asks a person to attest his Will, it is a reasonable Where a testator asks a person to attest his Will, it is a reasonable Where a testator asks a person to attest his Will, it is a reasonable inference that he was admitting that the Will had been executed by inference that he was admitting that the Will had been executed by inference that he was admitting that the Will had been executed by inference that he was admitting that the Will had been executed by him. There is no express prescription in the statute that the testator him. There is no express prescription in the statute that the testator him. There is no express prescription in the statute that the testator him. There is no express prescription in the statute that the testator TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -14- - ust necessarily sign the will in presence of the attesting witnesses must necessarily sign the will in presence of the attesting witnesses ust necessarily sign the will in presence of the attesting witnesses ust necessarily sign the will in presence of the attesting witnesses only or that the two attesting witnesses must put their signatures on only or that the two attesting witnesses must put their signatures on only or that the two attesting witnesses must put their signatures on only or that the two attesting witnesses must put their signatures on the will simultaneously at the same time in presence of each other and the will simultaneously at the same time in presence of each other and the will simultaneously at the same time in presence of each other and the will simultaneously at the same time in presence of each other and the testator.” the testator. 40. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Learned counsel for the re Lalitaben Jayantilal spondent relied on Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat’s case (supra) a decision which emphasises the need for proper attestation (supra) a decision which emphasises the need for proper attestation a decision which emphasises the need for proper attestation and the desirability (in many cases) of examining attesting witnesses. That and the desirability (in many cases) of examining attesting witnesses. That and the desirability (in many cases) of examining attesting witnesses. That and the desirability (in many cases) of examining attesting witnesses. That decision, however, is distinguishable on its facts from the present case for the decision, however, is distinguishable on its facts from the present case for the decision, however, is distinguishable on its facts from the present case for the decision, however, is distinguishable on its facts from the present case for the following reasons: following reasons: 1. In the reported decision relied upon the factual matrix required decision relied upon, the factual matrix required either both attesting witnesses to be examined or there were other either both attesting witnesses to be examined or there were other either both attesting witnesses to be examined or there were other either both attesting witnesses to be examined or there were other material circumstances which rendered examination of both necessary material circumstances which rendered examination of both necessary material circumstances which rendered examination of both necessary material circumstances which rendered examination of both necessary for satisfactorily establishing the W for s atisfactorily establishing the Will. The present case is materiall ill. The present case is materially different: Ex.D1 is a registered instrument and one credible attesting different: Ex.D1 is a registered instrument and one credible attesting different: Ex.D1 is a registered instrument and one credible attesting different: Ex.D1 is a registered instrument and one credible attesting 2) has been examined and has identified the execution. witness (DW-2) has been examined and has identified the execution. 2) has been examined and has identified the execution. witness (DW 2. In the reported case the facts also involved such lacunae and In the reported case the facts also involved such lacunae and In the reported case the facts also involved such lacunae and y or glaring contradictions in the attesting witness’es testimony or glaring contradictions in the attesting witness’es testimon contradictions in the attesting witness’es testimon irregularities which warranted rejection of the will. In contrast, in the irregularities which warranted rejection of the will. In contrast, in the irregularities which warranted rejection of the will. In contrast, in the irregularities which warranted rejection of the will. In contrast, in the 2 has spoken consistently about present case the attesting witness DW-2 has spoken consistently about present case the attesting witness DW present case the attesting witness DW the execution; the non-examination of Harinder the execution; the non is explained by examination of Harinder Pattar is explained by ot shown to be a deliberate concealment. his residence abroad and is not shown to be a deliberate concealment. ot shown to be a deliberate concealment. his residence abroad and is n 3. the ratio of the cited authority cannot be applied in Therefore, the ratio of the cited authority cannot be applied in the ratio of the cited authority cannot be applied in rigid form so as to require exclusion of Ex.D1 in the face of a rigid form so as to require exclusion of Ex.D1 in the face of a rigid form so as to require exclusion of Ex.D1 in the face of a rigid form so as to require exclusion of Ex.D1 in the face of a registered will and credible testimony of one attesting witness, registered will and credible testimony of one attesting witness, registered will and credible testimony of one attesting witness, registered will and credible testimony of one attesting witness, tiff’s own admissions which weaken his challenge. coupled with plaintiff’s own admissions which weaken his challenge. tiff’s own admissions which weaken his challenge. coupled with plain TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4512-2012 2012 (O&M) -15- - the judgment cited by the respondent is not a For these reasons, the judgment cited by the respondent is not a the judgment cited by the respondent is not a For these reasons parallel or controlling precedent on the facts and cannot be invoked as a ground to parallel or controlling precedent on the facts and cannot be invoked as a ground to parallel or controlling precedent on the facts and cannot be invoked as a ground to parallel or controlling precedent on the facts and cannot be invoked as a ground to y fatal suspicious sustain the concurrent finding that Ex.D1 is vitiated by fatal suspicious sustain the concurrent finding that Ex.D1 is vitiated b sustain the concurrent finding that Ex.D1 is vitiated b circumstances. 41. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Keeping in view the mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Keeping in view the mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Keeping in view the mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. , 2025 September 15, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document