Jeewan Kumar and Another Jeewan Kumar and Another v. Rama Rani and Another Rama Rani and Another
Case Details
RSA-5252-2018 2018 (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-5252-2018 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-15.09.2025 Date of Decision : 16.09.2025 Date of Decision : Jeewan Kumar and Another Jeewan Kumar and Another ....Appellants VERSUS Rama Rani and Another Rama Rani and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. for the appellants. Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte Vide order dated 28.02.2023. Vide order dated 28.02.2023. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri Jeewan Kumar, decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by impugning the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. By that judgment the learned First Appellate the First Appellate Court Court. By that judgment, the First Appellate Court plaintiff, Ms. Rama Rani, reversed the allowed the appeal preferred by respondent–plaintiff, Ms. Rama Rani, reversed the plaintiff, Ms. Rama Rani, reversed the allowed the appeal preferred by respondent ecreed the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 of the Trial Court and decreed the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 of the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 of the plaintiff’s suit by declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of 1/10th share in share in plaintiff’s suit by declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of plaintiff’s suit by declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in learned favour of the appellant. The appellant challenges the correctness of that learned favour of the appellant. The appellant challenges the correctness of that favour of the appellant. The appellant challenges the correctness of that appellate Court’s Court’s decree and maintains that the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D 2) on maintains that the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) on genuine testamentary instrument duly which the mutation was sanctioned is a genuine testamentary instrument duly genuine testamentary instrument duly which the mutation was sanctioned is a proved in accordance with law. proved in accordance with law. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) Factual Background Factual Background -2- - 2. 88 kanals The relevant facts, in brief are that the suit land comprises 88 kanals The relevant facts, in brief are that the suit land comprises The relevant facts, in brief are that the suit land comprises 19 marlas fully detailed in plaint, situated in Village Dodwan, Tehsil and 19 marlas fully detailed in plaint, District in Village Dodwan, Tehsil and District he protracted family as per jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. The protracted family as per jamabandi for the year 2002 Gurdaspur, as per jamabandi for the year 2002 history of which is material. The common ancestor, history of which is mater Nikka Ram, died in 1959 ial. The common ancestor, Nikka Ram, died in 1959 daughters leaving widow Banti, two sons Ram Lubhaya and Som Prakash, and two daughters leaving widow Banti, two sons Ram Lubhaya and Som Prakash, and two leaving widow Banti, two sons Ram Lubhaya and Som Prakash, and two . The estate devolved upon these five legal Kamla and Punni alias Shakuntla Devi. The estate devolved upon these five legal . The estate devolved upon these five legal Kamla and Punni heirs in equal shares, i.e., each got 1/5th share. S heirs in equal shares, i.e.,
Legal Reasoning
mt. Punni alias Shakuntala share. Smt. Punni alias Shakuntala Devi/testatrix died on testatrix died on 24.01.1996 leaving behind two children, namely, Rama Rani 6 leaving behind two children, namely, Rama Rani (daughter), and Naval Kishore (son) (respondents (daughter), and Naval . On succession the 1/5 (respondents-herein). On succession the 1/5 s and thus the share of Punni devolved upon her two children in equal shares and thus the share of Punni devolved upon her two children in equal share of Punni devolved upon her two children in equal respondents claimed 1/10 share. claimed 1/10 share. The plaintiff/respondent pleaded that she The plaintiff/respondent further pleaded that she Lubhaya (defendant No.2), by a general had empowered her maternal uncle, Ram Lubhaya (defendant No.2), by a general Lubhaya (defendant No.2), by a general had empowered her maternal uncle, Ram inheritance mutation sanctioned. Power of Attorney dated 12.06.2002 to get the inheritance mutation sanctioned. Power of Attorney dated 12.06.2002 to get the Power of Attorney dated 12.06.2002 to get the 30.11.2010, the er, on obtaining certified copies from revenue record on 30.11.2010, the er, on obtaining certified copies from revenue record on Later, on obtaining certified copies from revenue record on plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the column, instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the name of defendant No.1 (appellant), son of Ram Lubhaya, on the basis of a Will defendant No.1 (appellant), son of Ram Lubhaya, on the basis of a Will (appellant), son of Ram Lubhaya, on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Punni in favour of the appellant. dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) allegedly executed by Punni in favour of the appellant. allegedly executed by Punni in favour of the appellant. dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D forgery effected by the defendants in The plaintiff alleged that the Will was a forgery effected by the defendants in forgery effected by the defendants in The plaintiff alleged that the Will was a connivance with witnesses and scribe and that Mutation connivance with witnesses and nd that Mutation No.3198 was illegal. S No.3198 was illegal. She cancelled the Power of Attorney on 03.01.2011 and filed the suit seeking Power of Attorney on 03.01.2011 and filed the suit seeking on 03.01.2011 and filed the suit seeking and injunction. declaration and injunction. 3. defendants denied the allegation of forgery. Their pleaded case The defendants denied the allegation of forgery. Their pleaded case defendants denied the allegation of forgery. Their pleaded case The 2) in testatrix validly executed the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) in testatrix validly executed the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D was that the testatrix validly executed the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -3- - stated in the Will, that the Will was attested by favour of the appellant for reasons stated in the Will, that the Will was attested by stated in the Will, that the Will was attested by favour of the appellant for reasons mutation No.3198 was duly sanctioned and valid, and that there two witnesses, that mutation No.3198 was duly sanctioned and valid, and that there mutation No.3198 was duly sanctioned and valid, and that there two witnesses, that was no fraud. The defendants led oral evidence in support of Ex.D was no fraud. The defe 2 and relied led oral evidence in support of Ex.D-2 and relied upon attesting witnesses. upon attesting witnesses. 4. the Trial Court framed the principal issues which On the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the principal issues which the Trial Court framed the principal issues which On the pleadings may be summarized summarized as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for (OPP) (OPP) 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? (OPD) maintainable in the present form? (OPD) 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD) of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD) 4. Whether the suit is bad for non Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties of necessary parties? (OPD) (OPD) 5. Relief. 5. The plaintiff examined herself as PW The plaintiff examined 1 and exhibited Jamabandi for herself as PW-1 and exhibited Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 03 Ex.P-1, copy of mutation (challenged) Ex.P 2, General Power of , copy of mutation (challenged) Ex.P-2, General Power of Attorney Ex.P-3 and Deed of 3 and Deed of Cancellation dated 03.01.2011 Ex.P Thereafter the Cancellation dated 03.01.2011 Ex.P-4. Thereafter the plaintiffs closed their evidence. plaintiffs closed their evidence. 6. The defendants examined Jeewan Kumar as The defendants examined Dalip Singh, Jeewan Kumar as DW-1, Dalip Singh, Naval Kishore (son of the attesting witness of the Will dated 07.12.1995 as DW-2, Naval Kishore (son of the attesting witness of the Will dated 07.12.1995 as attesting witness of the Will dated 07.12.1995 as testatrix) as DW who also testified as a witness to the Will DW-3 and Ram Lubhaya, who also testified as a witness to the Will who also testified as a witness to the Will The Will dated 17.12.1995 was involved in obtaining mutation as DW-4. The Will dated 17.12.1995 was involved in obtaining mutation as DW and was involved in obtaining mutation as DW Thereafter the defendants closed their evidence. produced on record as Ex.D-2. Thereafter the defendants closed their evidence. produced on record as Ex.D Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 7. After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held that the Will Ex.D 2 had been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Ex.D-2 had been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian 2 had been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -4- - Evidence Act, 1872 Court recorded that two attesting witnesses viz Court recorded that two attesting witnesses , 1872. The Trial Court recorded that two attesting witnesses DW-2 and DW 2 and DW-4 had been examined and that their testimony established due 4 had been examined and that their testimony established due execution of the Will by the testatrix while she was possessed of execution of the Will by a sound disposing the testatrix while she was possessed of a sound disposing presence of mind and that she had affixed her thumb impression and signed in the presence of mind and that she had affixed her thumb impression and signed in the mind and that she had affixed her thumb impression and signed in the witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce cogent evidence to prove forgery or fraud and that cogent evidence to prove forgery mere assertions of forgery by or fraud and that, mere assertions of forgery by the plaintiff without corroborative material evidence were without corroborative material evidence were without corroborative material evidence were insufficient. insufficient. insufficient. Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of Consequently, the Trial Court upheld Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of Consequently, the Trial Court upheld the appellant and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit vide the appellant and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit vide judgment dated 16.11.2016. Findings of the First Appellate Court Findings of the First Appellate Court 8. he plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First he plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First Feeling aggrieved, t Appellate Court re-examined the record and Appellate Court re reversed the Trial Court. The examined the record and reversed the Trial Court. The by a cluster of Appellate Court took the view that the Will Ex.D-2 was surrounded by a cluster of Appellate Court took the view that the Will Ex.D Appellate Court took the view that the Will Ex.D suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due execution. The Appellate Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows: execution. The Appellate Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows: execution. The Appellate Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows: (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it specify (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it speci (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it speci (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it speci affixed; the Will was an unregistered which thumb impression was affixed; the Will was an unregistered affixed; the Will was an unregistered which thumb document. document. (b) Evidence disclosed that the Will had been typed/described by (b) Evidence disclosed that the Will had been typed/described by (b) Evidence disclosed that the Will had been typed/described by son of testatrix Sh. Naval Kishore DW of testatrix Sh. 3, which cast doubt on the DW-3, which cast doubt on the independence of its preparation. independence of its preparation. (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by oral evidence showing that it was Jeewan Kumar were belied by oral evidence showing that it was oral evidence showing that it was Jeewan testatrix, Naval Kishore who had actually attended and cared for the testatrix Naval Kishore who had actually attended and cared for the Naval Kishore who had actually attended and cared for the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -5- - lsewhere and the beneficiary (appellant) was shown to be employed elsewhere and the beneficiary (appellant) was shown to be employed e the beneficiary (appellant) was shown to be employed e not in attendance. not in (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of the Will (17.12.1995) and the date when the mutat the Will (17.12.1995) and ion was sanctioned the date when the mutation was sanctioned (24.07.2006); during this interval the Will “did not (24.07.2006) see the light of during this interval the Will “did not see the light of day,” which raised suspicion. day,” which rais (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate documentary exhibit and to hold that the Will Court to disbelieve the documentary exhibit and to hold that the Will documentary exhibit and to hold that the Will Court to disbelieve the succession the 1/5 share of was not a genuine instrument. By natural succession the 1/5 share of was not a genuine instrument. By natural was not a genuine instrument. By natural nd the plaintiff was declared Punni devolved upon her two children and the plaintiff was declared Punni devolved upon her two children a Punni devolved upon her two children a to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of defendant No.1 (appellant) was set aside. The defendant No.1 (appellant) was set aside. The impugned decree by was rendered on 07.03.2018. Appellate Court was rendered on 07.03.2018. Appellate Court Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties 9. vehemently urged that the First Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the First Learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court Appellate Court erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court Appellate Court out that the defendants had examined two without proper reason. It was pointed out that the defendants had examined two out that the defendants had examined two without proper reason. It was pointed attesting witnesses DW-2 and DW-4 who had attesting witnesses DW positively deposed to the due 4 who had positively deposed to the due , the son of execution of the Will dated 17.12.1995 and that DW-3 Naval Kishore, the son of execution of the Will dated 17.12.1995 and that DW execution of the Will dated 17.12.1995 and that DW the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported sed that Section 63 of execution rather than disproved it. Learned counsel emphasised that Section 63 of execution rather than disproved it. Learned counsel emphasi execution rather than disproved it. Learned counsel emphasi Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting the Evidence Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting witnesses are examined the requirement is witnesses and that if two attesting witnesses are examined the requirement is witnesses are examined the requirement is witnesses and that if two attesting ry or nce the primary evidence has been so led, the burden to show forgery or nce the primary evidence has been so led, satisfied. Once the primary evidence has been so led, lead cogent fabrication lies on the party asserting it and that such party must lead cogent fabrication lies on the party asserting it and that such party must fabrication lies on the party asserting it and that such party must TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -6- - evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly of evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly overturn a trial court’s findings unless perversity, misappreciation or failure to turn a trial court’s findings unless perversity, misappreciation or failure to court’s findings unless perversity, misappreciation or failure to consider material evidence is demonstrated. consider material 10. supported the approach of the Learned counsel for the respondents supported the approach of the Learned counsel for the respondent Learned counsel for the respondent Appellate Court and urged that the Will was indeed surrounded Appellate Court by suspicious and urged that the Will was indeed surrounded by suspicious together, rendered the Will unreliable. Learned counsel circumstances which, taken together, rendered the Will unreliable. Learned counsel together, rendered the Will unreliable. Learned counsel circumstances which, taken pressed the points that the Will had been typed by pressed the points that the Will had been , that the recitals typed by son of testatrix, that the recitals were inconsistent with material facts about attendance and services, th were inconsistent with material facts about at the Will attendance and services, that the Will that subsequent remained concealed for a long period before mutation and that subsequent remained concealed for a long period before mutation and remained concealed for a long period before mutation and cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested an cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, after-thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, and cogent, can outweigh mere attestation. where strong and cogent, can outweigh mere attestation. and cogent, can outweigh mere attestation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which must be proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. When must be proved in two attesting accordance with the Evidence Act. When two attesting testimony is satisfactory, a court may accept the witnesses are examined and their testimony is satisfactory, a court may accept the testimony is satisfactory, a court may accept the witnesses are examined and their recognises that if a Will is instrument as proved. At the same time the law recognises that if a Will is instrument as proved. At the same time the law instrument as proved. At the same time the law proof required surrounded by suspicious circumstances the tendency is to treat the proof required surrounded by suspicious circumstances the tendency is to treat the surrounded by suspicious circumstances the tendency is to treat the of the propounder of the Will as heavier. In other words, where reasonable of the propounder of the Will as heavier doubts n other words, where reasonable doubts are raised, a Court must scrutini ourt must scrutinise the evidence carefully. The C ourt must weigh se the evidence carefully. The Court must weigh the primary evidence attesting witnesses and the document itself and also primary evidence i.e. attesting witnesses and the document itself and also attesting witnesses and the document itself and also rrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the examine the surrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the rrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the rrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the witnesses and seeing their demeanour Trial Court after appreciating evidence of witnesses and seeing their demeanour witnesses and seeing their demeanour Trial Court after TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -7- - and where there is no perversity, the A re there is no perversity, the Appellate be cautious in ppellate Court must be cautious in substituting its view. substituting its view. 13. discuss in detail each circumstance relied This Court now proceeds to discuss in detail each circumstance relied discuss in detail each circumstance relied This Co respondent, and explain why, on critical upon by the First Appellate Court and the respondent, and explain why, on critical respondent, and explain why, on critical upon by the First Appellate Court and the not carry the weight attributed analysis of the record, these circumstances either do not carry the weight attributed analysis of the record, these circumstances either do analysis of the record, these circumstances either do to them by the Appellate Court or they are insufficient to them by the Appellat singly or Court or they are insufficient either singly or to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial cumulatively to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial Court’s credibility findings. Court’s credibility findings. Absence of testatrix’s age and the question of thumb impression particulars Absence of testatrix’s age and the question of thumb impression particulars Absence of testatrix’s age and the question of thumb impression particulars 14. Appellate Court emphasised that the Will did not contain an The Appellate Court emphasised that the Will did not contain an Appellate Court emphasised that the Will did not contain an The the age of the testatrix and that the Will did not clearly record express statement of the age of the testatrix and that the Will did not clearly record the age of the testatrix and that the Will did not clearly record express statement of whether a right or left thumb impression had been affixed. whether a right or left thumb This Court is of the impression had been affixed. This Court is of the view, while such descriptive while such descriptive details may sometimes assist a ourt, the absence of a details may sometimes assist a Court, the absence of a impression was testatrix’s exact age or the precise description of which thumb impression was testatrix’s exact age or the precise description of which thumb testatrix’s exact age or the precise description of which thumb affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no tain the testator’s age or that the statutory requirement that a Will must contain the testator’s age or that the tain the testator’s age or that the statutory requirement that a Will must con specify which thumb was impressed. The decisive considerations instrument must specify which thumb was impressed. The decisive considerations specify which thumb was impressed. The decisive considerations instrument must bears the formalities of testamentary execution are whether the document bears the formalities of testamentary execution are whether the document i.e. presence of attesting witnesses and their corroborating testimo presence of attesting witnesses and their , that the testatrix corroborating testimony, that the testatrix instrument expresses the had requisite testamentary capacity, and that the instrument expresses the had requisite testamentary capacity, and that the had requisite testamentary capacity, and that the testimony from testatrix’s intent. In the record before this Court there is positive testimony from testatrix’s intent. In the record before this Court there is positive testatrix’s intent. In the record before this Court there is positive two attesting witnesses (DW-2 and DW-4) who stated that the testatrix adm two attesting witnesses (DW itted 4) who stated that the testatrix admitted the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential thereafter the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential The absence of an age recital therefore constitutes at most formalities of execution. The absence of an age recital therefore constitutes at most The absence of an age recital therefore constitutes at most formalities of execution. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -8- - evidence of fabrication in the absence of other a peripheral irregularity and not evidence of fabrication in the absence of other evidence of fabrication in the absence of other a peripheral irregularity and not concrete indicia of non-genuineness. concrete indicia of non The unregistered nature of the Will The unregistered nature of the Will 15. The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance must be emphasised that registration of a Will is optional by the Appellate Court. It must be emphasised that registration of a Will is optional must be emphasised that registration of a Will is optional by the Appellate in law. Many private Wills are never registered and yet are perfectly valid if duly ny private Wills are never registered and yet are perfectly valid if duly are never registered and yet are perfectly valid if duly executed and attested. The principal consequence of non executed and attested. The principal registration relates to consequence of non-registration relates to evidential considerations ie. registered documents evidential considerations ordinarily carry an evidentiary registered documents ordinarily carry an evidentiary Will invalid. weight of authenticity but absence of registration does not make a Will invalid. weight of authenticity but absence of registration does not make a weight of authenticity but absence of registration does not make a 2 cannot itself constitute suspicious Therefore the unregistered status of Ex.D-2 cannot itself constitute suspicious 2 cannot itself constitute suspicious Therefore the unregistered status of Ex.D hrow positive testimony of attesting circumstance of sufficient force to overthrow positive testimony of attesting hrow positive testimony of attesting circumstance of sufficient force to overt witnesses. 3/Naval Kishore) Typing/description of the Will by the son of the testatrix (DW-3/Naval Kishore) Typing/description of the Will by the son of the testatrix (DW Typing/description of the Will by the son of the testatrix (DW 16. The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or described by Naval Kishore (DW-3), son of the testatrix described by Naval , and treated this as a 3), son of the testatrix, and treated this as a suspicious circumstance. In the view of this Court, suspicious circumstance. In this reasoning is flawed. the view of this Court, this reasoning is flawed. Ordinarily, one might treat involvement of an heir in preparing a Will as creating Ordinarily, one might treat involvement of an heir in Ordinarily, one might treat involvement of an heir in preparing a Will as creating a possibility of self-interest, however, in the present case the factua possibility of self position is the however, in the present case the factual position is the reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, half of her 1/5 share in the estate. Yet, the Will he would have inherited one-half of her 1/5 share in the estate. Yet, the Will half of her 1/5 share in the estate. Yet, the Will he would have inherited one Ex.D-2 expressly 2 expressly disinherited him and bequeathed the property to the appella nt, a disinherited him and bequeathed the property to the appellant, a this, Naval Kishore not only did not challenge the nephew of the testatrix. Despite this, Naval Kishore not only did not challenge the this, Naval Kishore not only did not challenge the nephew of the testatrix. Despite that the Will had been executed by Will but also appeared as DW-3 and admitted that the Will had been executed by that the Will had been executed by Will but also appeared as DW his mother. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -9- - 17. even This is a very material circumstance because it demonstrates that even This is a very material circumstance because it demonstrates that This is a very material circumstance because it demonstrates that the son of the testatrix, who would have lost a direct share under the Will did not testatrix, who would have lost a direct share under the Will did not who would have lost a direct share under the Will did not On the contrary, he supported it in his testimony. Far from dispute its genuineness. On the contrary, he supported it in his testimony. Far from On the contrary, he supported it in his testimony. Far from dispute its genuineness. involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the casting suspicion on the Will, the involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the casting suspicion on the Will, the instrument lends support to the case of the propounder. If the Will had been rument lends support to the case of the propounder. If the Will had been propounder. If the Will had been been the first person fabricated to the detriment of Naval Kishore, he would have been the first person fabricated to the detriment of Naval Kishore, he would have fabricated to the detriment of Naval Kishore, he would have to object, but he did not. Instead, he confirmed its execution, to object, but he did not. Inst which strengthens the ead, he confirmed its execution, which strengthens the case of the appellant and goes to support its genuineness. ellant and goes to support its genuineness. The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of caregiving actual caregiving 18. One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was an apparent contradiction between a recital in the Will that the appellant had contradiction between a recital in the Will that the appellant had recital in the Will that the appellant had testatrix and the oral evidence which suggested that rendered certain services to the testatrix and the oral evidence which suggested that testatrix and the oral evidence which suggested that rendered certain services to the her son, Naval Kishore. The Appellate actually the testatrix had been served by her son, Naval Kishore. The Appellate her son, Naval Kishore. The Appellate actually the testatrix had been served by Court treated this contradiction as undermining credibility Court treated this contradiction as undermining credibility of the Will. 19. This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be First, a testator has complete freedom to bequeath property to carefully separated. First, a testator has complete freedom to bequeath property to First, a testator has complete freedom to bequeath property to carefully separated. gratitude for services rendered many years earlier or for gratitude for services rendered many years earlier or whom she chooses, and gratitude for services rendered many years earlier or whom she chooses, and preference can lawfully be a motive for testamentary reasons of companionship or preference can lawfully be a motive for testamentary preference can lawfully be a motive for testamentary reasons of companionship or may have received more care from one disposition. The fact that the testatrix may have received more care from one may have received more care from one disposition. The fact that the testatrix choosing to benefit person at some period does not legally preclude her from choosing to benefit person at some period does not legally preclude her from person at some period does not legally preclude her from . The law does not require the testatrix to distribute property in . The law does not require the testatrix to distribute property another relative. The law does not require the testatrix to distribute property another relative proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the itself. instrument itself. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -10- - 20. For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the eous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of contemporaneous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of eous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of eous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of forgery. Delay between date of Will (17.12.1995) and mutation (24.07.2006) Delay between date of Will (17.12.1995) and mutation (24.07.2006) Delay between date of Will (17.12.1995) and mutation (24.07.2006) 21. The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of time i.e. approximately eleven years, between the date of the Will and the date on i.e. approximately eleven years, between the date of the Will and the date on between the date of the Will and the date on which mutation was sanctioned on its basis. Undoubtedly which mutation was an unexplained long sanctioned on its basis. Undoubtedly, an unexplained long suspicious, particularly if the propounder offers delay in producing a Will may be suspicious, particularly if the propounder offers suspicious, particularly if the propounder offers delay in producing a Will may be raneous events make no plausible explanation for the delay and contemporaneous events make no plausible explanation for the delay and no plausible explanation for the delay and production at a later date improbable. But caution is required. production at a later date improbable. But caution is required. production at a later date improbable. But caution is required. 22. There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of revenue record for many years. In the present case revenue record for eneral In the present case, the record shows that a General Power of Attorney (Ex.P-3) was executed in 2002 and that mutation Power of Attorney occurred in 3) was executed in 2002 and that mutation occurred in 2006. The Power of Attorney route itself provides a plausible explanation for why Power of Attorney route itself provides a plausible explanation for why route itself provides a plausible explanation for why mutation may have been delayed administrative steps followed by revenue action have been delayed, administrative steps followed by revenue action administrative steps followed by revenue action numerical gap between 1995 and 2006, without often consume years. The mere numerical gap between 1995 and 2006, without numerical gap between 1995 and 2006, without often consume years. The fabricated during the intervening period, does additional proof that the Will was fabricated during the intervening period, does fabricated during the intervening period, does additional proof that the Will was not suffice to persuade the Court that the Will is false. not suffice to persuade the Court that the Will is not suffice to persuade the Court that the Will is tation Cancellation of the Power of Attorney (03.01.2011) and conduct after mutation Cancellation of the Power of Attorney (03.01.2011) and conduct after mu Cancellation of the Power of Attorney (03.01.2011) and conduct after mu 23. The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P-3) The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P mutation was subsequently cancelled by a deed dated 03.01.2011 which facilitated mutation was subsequently cancelled by a deed dated 03.01.2011 mutation was subsequently cancelled by a deed dated 03.01.2011 which facilitated (Ex.P-4), and argues that such cancellation supports a conclusion that initial 4), and argues that such cancellation supports a conclusion that initial cancellation supports a conclusion that initial re procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself documents were procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself re procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself re procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself document executed earlier was forged. The cancellation prove that a testamentary document executed earlier was forged. The cancellation document executed earlier was forged. The cancellation prove that a testamentary TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -11- - proves that a dispute arose between parties later, proves that a dispute arose between the existence of a dispute is parties later, the existence of a dispute is unsurprising in intra-family property matters. unsurprising in intra Credibility and evidentiary weight of attestations (DW-2 and DW-4) Credibility and evidentiary weight of attestations (DW Credibility and evidentiary weight of attestations (DW 24. rests on the The decisive evidentiary element in favour of the Will rests on the The decisive evidentiary element in favour of The decisive evidentiary element in favour of testimony of two attesting witnesses DW-2 ( testimony of two attesting witnesses DW 4 (Ram 2 (Dalip Singh) and DW-4 (Ram Lubhaya). The Trial Court accepted their evidence. The First Lubhaya). The Trial Appellate Court was Court accepted their evidence. The First Appellate Court was findings of appreciate the evidence, but to overturn concurrent factual findings of appreciate the evidence, but to overturn concurrent factual entitled to re-appreciate the evidence, but to overturn concurrent factual its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was the trial court, its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was to the materials on record or vitiated by legal error. manifestly contrary to the materials on record or vitiated by legal error. manifestly contrary 25. On re-reading the materials of the attesting witnesses On re one finds that reading the materials of the attesting witnesses, one finds that both DW-2 and 2 and DW-4 gave consistent accounts. T hey stated that Punni 4 gave consistent accounts. They stated that Punni acknowledged the contents to be correct and put her thum acknowledged the contents to be correct b impression before them and put her thumb impression before them owing and they signed as witnesses. There is no direct evidence in the record showing and they signed as witnesses. There is no direct and they signed as witnesses. There is no direct that these witnesses lied, indeed the plaintiff produced no that these witnesses lied, independent witness or indeed the plaintiff produced no independent witness or forgery forensic evidence to disprove their testimony. Where the party alleging forgery forensic evidence to disprove their testimony. Where the party alleg forensic evidence to disprove their testimony. Where the party alleg fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be must be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative impugned as perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative evidence. Cumulative assessment of suspicious circumstances Cumulative assessment of suspicious circumstances Cumulative assessment of suspicious circumstances 26. The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances numerous independent indicia of fabrication converge, a cumulatively. Where numerous independent indicia of fabrication converge, a numerous independent indicia of fabrication converge, a cumulatively. Where Will despite attesting evidence. In this case, court may rightly decline to accept a Will despite attesting evidence. In this case, Will despite attesting evidence. In this case, court may rightly decline to accept a however, the so-called suspicious circumstances however, the so absence of age, unregistered called suspicious circumstances i.e absence of age, unregistered status, typing by son of testatrix, the recital about services, status, typing by delay in mutation, and , the recital about services, delay in mutation, and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -12- - subsequent cancellation of Power of Attorney subsequent cancellation of when analysed in detail, do not ney when analysed in detail, do not constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s acceptance of attesting witnesses. attesting witnesses. The central evidence remains unrefuted by he central evidence remains unrefuted by cogent counter-evidence. On the whole evidence. On the whole, the suspicions of such strength or the suspicions are not of such strength or the Trial clarity as to outweigh the positive testimony of DW-2 and DW-4 and the Trial clarity as to outweigh the positive testimony of DW clarity as to outweigh the positive testimony of DW findings. Court’s findings Burden and standard of proof Burden and standard of proof 27. It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on proves the Will by attesting witness testimony, the propounder. If the propounder proves the Will by attesting witness testimony, proves the Will by attesting witness testimony, the propounder. forgery must discharge a burden of proof to show the receiving party asserting forgery must discharge a burden of proof to show forgery must discharge a burden of proof to show the receiving party asserting inferences drawn from peripheral facts fabrication or fraud. Mere assertions and inferences drawn from peripheral facts inferences drawn from peripheral facts fabrication or fraud. Mere assertions and are insufficient. The plaintiff here failed to lead are insufficient. The plaintiff here failed to for example independent evidence, for example evidence, or independent contemporaneous documents, handwriting or forensic evidence, or independent contemporaneous documents, handwriting or forensic contemporaneous documents, handwriting or forensic would have been witness testimony contradicting the attesting witnesses which would have been witness testimony contradicting the attesting witnesses which witness testimony contradicting the attesting witnesses which correctly treated the material in proving forgery. The Trial Court, therefore, correctly treated the material in proving forgery. The Trial Court material in proving forgery. The Trial Court evidence of the propounders as legally sufficient. evidence of the propounders as legally sufficient. evidence of the propounders as legally sufficient. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION 28. examination of On the basis of the evidence on record, the careful re-examination of On the basis of the evidence on record, the careful re On the basis of the evidence on record, the careful re evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following attesting evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following recorded: findings are recorded: (i) The Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D 2) was produced and attested 7.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) was produced and attested testimony was heard and accepted by the by two witnesses whose testimony was heard and accepted by the testimony was heard and accepted by the by two witnesses whose proof by Trial Court. That evidence satisfied the requirement of proof by Trial Court. That evidence satisfied the requirement of Trial Court. That evidence satisfied the requirement of the Evidence attesting witnesses as contemplated by Section 63 of the Evidence attesting witnesses as contemplated by Section 63 of attesting witnesses as contemplated by Section 63 of Act. The Trial Court’s acceptance of DW Act. The Trial 4’s testimony Court’s acceptance of DW-2 and DW-4’s testimony TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -13- - misappreciation of was not shown to be perverse or vitiated by a misappreciation of was not shown to be perverse or vitiated by a was not shown to be perverse or vitiated by a evidence. evidence. The arguments based on peripheral omissions in the instrument (ii) The arguments based on peripheral omissions in the instrument The arguments based on peripheral omissions in the instrument (ii) (such as absence of the testatrix’s (such as absence of the age or the particular thumb testatrix’s age or the particular thumb requirement that specified) are not legally decisive. There is no legal requirement that specified) are not legally decisive. There is no legal specified) are not legally decisive. There is no legal age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, minor and do not, without additional direct evidence of if any, are minor and do not, without additional direct evidence of minor and do not, without additional direct evidence of if any, are idate a duly attested Will. fabrication, invalidate a duly attested Will. fabrication, inval involvement of the heir in preparing the will shall factually (iii) The involvement of the heir in preparing the will shall factually involvement of the heir in preparing the will shall factually (iii) interest. But in this case, the son lost a create a possibility of self-interest. But in this case, the son lost a interest. But in this case, the son lost a create direct share in the Will despite being direct share in the the one preparing it. Thus, far despite being the one preparing it. Thus, far from casting the suspicion of Will, the involvement of Naval from casting Kishore ill, the involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. fabricated, the heir should have been the first one Had the Will been fabricated, the heir should have been the first one fabricated, the heir should have been the first one Had the e son creates to object. Therefore, typing/description of the Will by the son creates to object. Therefore, typing/description of the to object. Therefore, typing/description of the no suspicion regarding the genuineness of the instrument. no suspicion regarding the genuineness of the instrument. no suspicion regarding the genuineness of the instrument. The recital in the Will describing services allegedly rendered by (iv) The recital in the Will describing services allegedly rendered by The recital in the Will describing services allegedly rendered by (iv) contrasted with evidence that the testatrix may the appellant, when contrasted with evidence that the testatrix may contrasted with evidence that the testatrix may the appellant, when does not in law render have been served by her son, Naval Kishore, does not in law render have been served by her son, Naval Kishore, have been served by her son, Naval Kishore, the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary favour of any person for reasons of gratitude, choice or dispositions in favour of any person for reasons of gratitude, choice or favour of any person for reasons of gratitude, choice or dispositions in other considerations. The record personal preference, past services, or other considerations. The record personal preference, past services, or personal preference, past services, or recital was a deliberate falsehood. does not establish that the recital was a deliberate falsehood does not establish that the (v) The delay between the date of the Will and the sanctioning of The delay between the date of the Will and the sanctioning of The delay between the date of the Will and the sanctioning of cancellation of a power of attorney, are mutation, and the subsequent cancellation of a power of attorney, are cancellation of a power of attorney, are mutation, and the subsequent TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 2018 (O&M) -14- - evidence of facts that require explanation but are not, on this record, evidence of facts that require explanation but are not, on this record, facts that require explanation but are not, on this record, fabrication. fabrication For all these reasons, the cluster of suspicious circumstances (vi) For all these reasons, the cluster of suspicious circumstances For all these reasons, the cluster of suspicious circumstances (vi) Court does not, in the particular factual identified by the Appellate Court does not, in the particular factual Court does not, in the particular factual identified by the Appellate matrix before this Court, attain the necessary cogency to matrix before overturn the , attain the necessary cogency to overturn the Trial Court’s acceptance of the Will. Trial Court’s acceptance of the Will. Trial Court’s acceptance of the Will. 29.
Decision
Regular Second Appeal is allowed. In view of the above, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. Regular Second Appeal is allowed. In view of the above, the present udgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are Judgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are udgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are udgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are hereby set aside. The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Trial set aside. The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Trial The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Trial suit are restored. In consequence, Mutation Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit are restored. In consequence, Mutation suit are restored. In consequence, Mutation Court dismissing the plaintiff’s held valid on the basis of the No.3198 sanctioned in favour of the appellant stands held valid on the basis of the No.3198 sanctioned in favour of the appellant stands No.3198 sanctioned in favour of the appellant stands The plaintiff’s claim for declaration and injunction is proved Will (Ex.D-2). The plaintiff’s claim for declaration and injunction is The plaintiff’s claim for declaration and injunction is proved Will (Ex.D dismissed. 30. lso stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, a , 2025 September 16, 2025 tripti MANDEEP PANNU) (MANDEEP PANNU JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non Whether reportable Whether reportable : Yes. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document