O&M) Tarsem Singh and another v. DEEPAK KUMAR
Case Details
RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 12th of September, 2025 Pronounced on 15th of September, 2025 Tarsem Singh ....Appellant RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) Versus Nahar Singh through LRs Bhupinder Singh and another ...Respondents Tarsem Singh .... Appellant RSA-3683-2015 (O&M) Versus Baljeet Singh and another ...Respondents Tarsem Singh .... Appellant RSA-3806-2015 (O&M) Versus Nahar Singh through LRs Bhupinder Singh and another ...Respondents Tarsem Singh .... Appellant RSA-3950-2015 (O&M) Versus Baljeet Singh and another ...Respondents Baljeet Singh .... Appellant RSA-5439-2018 (O&M) Tarsem Singh and another ...Respondents Versus DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 2 Baljeet Singh .... Appellant RSA-3608-2018 (O&M) Versus Nahar Singh (now deceased) and another ...Respondents Baljeet Singh .... Appellant RSA-3669-2018 (O&M) Versus Nahar Singh (now deceased) and another ...Respondents Baljeet Singh .... Appellant RSA-3979-2018 (O&M) Nahar Singh (now deceased) and another ...Respondents Versus
Legal Reasoning
In the considered opinion of this Court in case the WILL dated 23.05.2000 propounded by Tarsem Singh is held to be valid, right of Nahar Singh will need no adjudication. 11. WILL dated 23.05.2000 is a registered WILL. Both the attesting witnesses of the same namely Harbans Singh Lamberdar and DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 5 Makhan Singh were examined as DW-10 and DW-11 respectively. Scribe of the WILL, Vinod Kumar Goyal was examined as DW-12. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the execution of WILL stands proved by the testimony of attesting witnesses and the scribe. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and disbelieved the WILL, Exhibit D-19 holding the same to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 12. Trite it is that propounder of the WILL is not only required to prove execution of the WILL but is also required to dispel suspicious circumstances if any. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of ‘Shivakumar and others vs. Sharanabasppa and others’, (2021) 11 SCC 277 considered series of case law to cull out the following principles to adjudicate upon the WILL: “xxxx xxxx xxxx 1. Ordinarily, a will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon. 2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence. 3. The unique feature of a will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 6 deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a will. 4. The case in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stands on a different footing. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. 5. If a person challenging the will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. 6. A circumstance is “suspicious” when it is not normal or is “not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person”. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must be “real, germane and valid” and not merely the “fantasy of the doubting mind”. 7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as “suspicious” would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependents; an active or leading part in making of the will by the beneficiary DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 7 thereunder et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances above-noted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the will. On the other hand, any of the circumstances qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation. 8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance(s). While applying such test, the court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? 9. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the court and the party which sets up the will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. xxxx xxxx xxxx” 14. Thus, a circumstance can be held to be suspicious only when it is not normal. It means either the conduct of testator is not normal or the covenant contained in WILL is abnormal or false. 15. Lower Appellate Court in the present case while enlisting suspicious circumstances surrounding the WILL dated 23.05.2000, observed as under: DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “xxxx No doubt, Tarsem Singh has examined Harbans RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 8 Singh namberdar (DW10) and Makhan Singh (DW11), who are attesting witnesses, to prove due execution of the Will, as well as Vinod Kumar Goyal (DW12), who is scribe of the impugned Will Ex.D19, but this Will is also surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Undisputedly, Tarsem Singh is not related to deceased Jeet Singh in any manner. Tarsem Singh, while appearing in the witness box as DW14, has taken the plea that he used to serve deceased Jeet Singh during his life time till his death and the deceased was treating him just like his real nephew, but there is not an iota of evidence on the file that Tarsem Singh served Jeet Singh during his life time. Not a single witness has been examined to prove that Tarsem Singh used to take meals to the house of Jeet Singh or Jeet Singh used to visit the house of Tarsem Singh to eat his meals. When cross-examined, Tarsem Singh admitted that he is having separate ration-card with his family members, including mother, wife, son and daughter. He could very well examine any of the female member of his house or son to say a single word that they used to deliver packed meals to Jeet Singh at his residence or the meals were being cooked at their home for Jeet Singh. It is not the case of Tarsem Singh that he himself was cooking meals for Jeet Singh during his life time by visiting his home or used to bring the same from a Dhaba or a Hotel. Simply saying that he used to serve the deceased during his life time is not sufficient to prove that the Will was executed by deceased Jeet Singh in his favour out of love and affection. Further, Tarsem Singh has taken the plea that he was being treated as nephew by deceased Jeet Singh, but not even a single witness has been examined to prove that he was calling deceased Jeet Singh by saying him as chacha (uncle). The contents of the Will also creates doubt regarding its genuineness. It has been written in the Will that if any brother or sister will claim/dispute this Will, they would have no right or interest in his property (property of the testator). Admittedly, deceased Jeet Singh died wifeless and issueless. He was having no brother or sister. The other relatives i.e. parents, grandparents, etc, also predeceased him. When the deceased was having no brother or sister, there was no need to write in the Will with regard to claim of any brother or DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 9 sister. This is one of the major suspicious circumstance creating doubt with regard to genuineness of the Will. Admittedly, Tarsem Singh was working as Peon in Cooperative Agriculture Services Society, Sukhanand. Makhan Singh (DW11), one of the attesting witness, was a member of the said Society, and Harbans Singh namberdar (DW10), other attesting witness of Will, was admittedly used to purchase fertilizers from the said Society. It appears that being related to each other on account of members of the Society, Tarsem Singh procured the Will in question in connivance with Harbans Singh namberdar and Makhan Singh.xxx” 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the WILL is surrounded by suspicious circumstance. Absence of relationship between Tarsem Singh and Jeet Singh cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance. WILL, by its very nature is a departure from natural succession. Privy Counsel in the case of ‘Motibai Harmusjee vs. Jemsetjee Hormusjee’, AIR 1924 PC 28, observed as under: “A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition.” 17. Relying upon the afore-stated observations made by Privy Council in Motibai Harmusjee’s case (supra), Supreme Court in Surendra Pal v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora, (1974) 2 SCC 600 held that: “It is not for us to fathom the motivations of a man. His actions and reactions are unpredictable as they depend upon so many circumstances. There is, however, always some dominant and impelling circumstance which motivates a man's action though in DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 10 some cases even a trivial and trifling cause impels him to act in a particular way which a majority of others may not do. At times psychological factors and the frame of mind in which he is, may determine his action.” 18. Same view was followed by this Court in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Rani Pathak vs. Smt. Nirja Guleri and others, 1977 AIR (P&H) 123, wherein while dealing with the issue of suspicious circumstance and the conscience of the Court, this Court observed as under:- “xxxx xxxx xxxx ………In the final analysis, it is the conscience of the Court that has to be satisfied and as such, the nature and quality of proof must be commensurate with the requirement to satisfy that conscience. The important question in each case is: What is the suspicion which a reasonable man will entertain in the circumstances of a case. xxxx xxxx xxxx” 19. Same sentiment was echoed in the case of ‘Swarnalatha and others vs. Kalavathy and others’, 2022 AIR Supreme Court 1585 wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “xxxx xxxx xxxx 25. The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will is already well-settled and it needs no reiteration. It is enough if we make a reference to one of the recent decisions of this Court in Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta1 where this Court referred to almost all previous decisions right from H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma2. But cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned. This can be seen from the fact that almost all previous decisions of this Court referred to in Kavita DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 11 Kanwar (supra) list out circumstances, which in the context of the lack of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator, became suspicious circumstances. In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will. xxxx xxxx xxxx” 20. Likewise, Tarsem Singh not being in knowledge of the name of the mother of Jeet Singh hardly makes any difference. It has come on record that Tarsem Singh as well as Jeet Singh were residents of same village. Testator in WILL claimed that he is being taken care of by Tarsem Singh. It stands proved that WILL was validly executed by Jeet Singh as per Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Tarsem Singh is merely working as a Peon in the Cooperative Society. There is no plea raised by Nahar Singh that the WILL propounded by Tarsem Singh is forged and fabricated. There is no evidence to suggest that Jeet Singh, at the time of execution of WILL dated 23.05.2000, was incapacitated in any manner. None of the circumstances enlisted by the Lower Appellate Court to dislodge the WILL, cannot be said to be such that would fall within the category of ‘suspicious circumstance’. 21. In view thereof, this Court finds the circumstances recorded by the Lower Appellate Court to be suspicious and strong enough to dislodge the registered WILL in favour of Tarsem Singh which otherwise stands proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act, cannot be held to be suspicious in terms of ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals Shivakumar’s case (supra). 12 22. Execution of the WILL having been proved and there being no circumstance that exhibits the testator acted in a manner which is not worthy of a prudent man, this Court finds that the Lower Appellate Court erred in dislodging the WILL spelling out certain circumstances as suspicious merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 23. DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 13 DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 14 DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 15 DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 16 DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 17 26. In view of above, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court on the Issue of WILL dated 23.05.2000 propounded by Tarsem Singh, cannot be sustained and the same need to be DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 18 reversed restoring the findings recorded by the Court of the First Instance. Accordingly, this Court finds that Jeet Singh executed valid WILL dated 23.05.2000 in favour of Tarsem Singh. Accordingly, suit filed by Tarsem Singh bearing Civil Suit No.137 of 11.03.2004 is ordered to be decreed. Keeping in view that the WILL propounded by Tarsem Singh has been upheld, this Court does not find any reason to go into the issue regarding status of Nahar Singh as one of the agnates of late Jeet Singh. 27. In view of above, suit filed by Nahar Singh bearing Civil Suit No.721 of 23.01.2002, is ordered to be dismissed. 28. As a sequel of the discussion, held herein-above, RSA Nos.3668, 3683, 3806 and 3950 of 2015, are allowed. RSA Nos.5439, 3608, 3969 and 3979 of 2018, are ordered to be dismissed.
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA-3668-2015, RSA-3683-2015, RSA-3806-2015 and RSA-3950-2015. Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate and Mr. Sidharth Grover, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA-5439-2018, RSA-3608-2018, RSA-3969-2018 & RSA-3979-2018 and for respondent No.2 in RSA-3668-2015. PANKAJ JAIN, J. These eight appeals arise out of dispute between the same parties who were fighting for the estate left by Jeet Singh, who died unmarried and issueless on 22.12.2001. 2. Nahar Singh filed Civil Suit No.721 of 23.01.2002 seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 3 left by Jeet Singh son of Pohla Singh, claiming that Jeet Singh died intestate. He claimed himself to be one of the agnates of Jeet Singh. As per Nahar Singh, all the relatives of Jeet Singh predeceased him. Plaintiff is the only person left related to him by blood. Nahar Singh challenged unregistered WILL propounded by Baljeet Singh, dated 16.12.2001. As per Nahar Singh, the WILL alleged to have been executed by Jeet Singh in favour of defendant No.1, is a forged and fabricated document and is a nullity in the eyes of law. He disputed mutation of inheritance of Jeet Singh on the basis of unregistered WILL, dated 16.12.2001. 3. Defendant No.2 Tarsem Singh filed Civil Suit No.137 of 11.03.2004 claiming himself to be owner and entitled to possession of the land left by Jeet Singh, on the basis of registered WILL dated 23.05.2000. 4. Both the suits were tried together. Suit filed by Nahar Singh was dismissed. Suit filed by Tarsem Singh was decreed upholding registered WILL dated 23.05.2000 propounded by Tarsem Singh. WILL propounded by Baljeet Singh was disbelieved. 5. Four different appeals were filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Two appeals were preferred by Nahar Singh. Two separate appeals were preferred by Baljeet Singh. 6. Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court qua registered WILL dated 23.05.2000 and dismissed the suit filed by Tarsem Singh. Version of Nahar Singh was also rejected holding that Nahar Singh failed to prove his relationship with deceased Jeet Singh. DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and other connected appeals 4 The Lower Appellate Court disbelieved both the WILLs propounded by Baljeet Singh and Tarsem Singh and at the same time rejected the claim of Nahar Singh on the basis of natural succession and ordered that the estate left by deceased Jeet Singh be estreached to the State. 7. Both, Nahar Singh as well as Tarsem Singh, have preferred four appeals each. In view of above, all the eight appeals are being decided by a common judgment as the lis is set up in the background of same questions of fact and involves same question of law. 8. Since Baljeet Singh has not preferred any appeal against the findings recorded by the Courts below and Courts below concurrently found that the WILL propounded by him could not be proved, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the said findings. Findings recorded by the Courts below regarding WILL dated 16.12.2001 are thus ordered to be maintained. 9. The issues that require consideration of this Court are: a) the validity of registered WILL dated 23.05.2000. b) the right of Nahar Singh as agnate of deceased Jeet Singh. 10.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. A copy of this order be kept on the files of other connected 29. 30. cases. September 15, 2025 Dpr (Pankaj Jain) Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.09.15 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document