Sukhpal Kaur and Ors v. Balbir Singh

IN T

Sukhpal Kaur an Balbir Singh

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

appellants/defen whereby the lea the suit of the r judgment and appellants/defen Brief Facts

2.

effect that the p detailed in the h District Jalandh THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da nd Others

VERSUS

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, s. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for r. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the res -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second A ndants challenging the concurr arned trial court vide judgment an respondent/plaintiff, and the lea decree dated 08.09.2012 dis ndants, thereby upholding the dec e plaintiff filed a suit for declar laintiff is owner in possession o headnote of the plaint, situated har. The plaintiff also sough

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-4512-2012 (O&M) served on:-09.09.2025 ate of Decision : 15.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellants. spondent. Appeal has been filed by ent findings of the courts belo nd decree dated 10.08.2010 decr arned Lower Appellate Court v missed the appeal filed by cision of the learned trial Court. ration against the defendants to of 1/6th share in the suit property at village Pattar Kalan, Tehsil ht relief of permanent injunct

- ow, reed vide y as

restraining the d and in the altern

3.

United Kingdom Singh. He exec Manjinder Sing Jalandhar, autho plaintiff, was th of his father Ta the suit property possession of th his father Tara S

4.

It i ownership over have been exec defendants is a impersonation. T and constitutes Singh, and hen Accordingly, th possession in th

5.

Up alleging therein has suppressed m present form an defendants from interfering in hi native also prayed for a decree of e brief facts of the case are that t m and came to India in connectio cuted a Special Power of Atto gh, son of Manohar Singh, re orising him to file the suit on h he exclusive owner of the suit pro ara Singh, since deceased, and h y on the basis of natural success he suit property on the basis of n Singh. is further pleaded that the def the suit property on the basis cuted by Tara Singh in their fa forged, fabricated, illegal and v The plaintiff further pleaded tha joint Hindu family property of nce no such Will could have be he plaintiff filed the suit for decl e alternative against the defenda on notice, the defendants appear that the plaintiff has not come material facts. It was pleaded tha nd does not lie against defendan

is possession over the suit prope f possession against the defendan the plaintiff ordinarily resides in on with the death of his father, T orney on 06.12.2003 in favour esident of village Chitti, Dist is behalf. Tara Singh, father of operty. The plaintiff is the only he succeeded to his estate includ sion. The plaintiff became owne natural succession after the death fendants started proclaiming th of some registered Will alleged favour. The Will so set up by void document and is the result at the property is ancestral prope f the plaintiff with his father T een executed with respect there laration, permanent injunction, ants. red and joint filed written statem to the Court with clean hands at the suit is not maintainable in nts No. 2 and 3 on account of th

- erty, nts. Tara r of trict son ding r in h of heir d to t of erty Tara eto. ment

minority status. not competent to or interest in the

6.

On the United King look after or m defendants, and defendant No. 1 Singh was looke from breathing came to see his performed the c also immersed a

7.

It w with defendant daughter-in-law a valid registere will and sound property. On the became owners suit was prayed

8.

made in the plai

9.

Fro the learned trial It was further contended that th o file the suit. It was also pleade e suit property. n merits, it was pleaded that the gdom and he never came to see maintain him. Tara Singh, sinc d it was they who took care of 1, Sukhpal Kaur, had expired in ed after and cared for by the de problems and was treated by t ailing father Tara Singh in the h cremation and Bhog ceremony of at Kiratpur Sahib by defendant N was further pleaded that Tara S No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. Tara Sin w and defendants No. 2 and 3 as h ed Will dated 22.06.1999 in favo d disposing mind, thereby mak e basis of the said registered Wi in possession of the suit prope for. e plaintiff filed replication wh int and denied those of the writte om the pleadings of the parties, th Court:

he attorney-holder of the plaintif d that the plaintiff has no right, t plaintiff has permanently settled e his father Tara Singh, nor did ce deceased, was living with f him in his old age. Husband n the year 1994, and thereafter T efendants. Tara Singh was suffer the defendants. The plaintiff ne hospital. It was the defendants w f Tara Singh. His last remains w No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur. Singh was holding a joint acco ngh treated defendant No. 1 as his grandsons. Tara Singh execu our of the defendants out of his f king them the owners of the ill dated 22.06.1999, the defenda erty. Accordingly, dismissal of herein he reiterated the averme en statement. he following issues were framed

- ff is title d in d he d of Tara ring ever who were ount his uted free suit ants ents

¶1he Cla

¶2pra

¶3pla

¶4han

¶5pre

¶6wil

7.

10.

In PW1 and exami

11.

On as DW1 besides DW3 Joginder S and Mark C to M Findings of the

12.

On decreed the suit while declining decree dated 10 Whether the plaintiff is entit is exclusive owner in possessio ass-I legal heir of late Tara Singh Whether the plaintiff is entit ayed for? OPP If issue No. 1 is not prove aintiff is entitled to a decree for p Whether the plaintiff has n nds as he has suppressed materia Whether defendants No. 2 a esent suit could not be filed again Whether late Tara Singh ex ll dated 22.06.1999 in favour of t Relief. order to prove his case, the pl ined himself as his own witness, n the other hand, defendant No. s examining DW2 Amarjit Singh Singh. The defendants also tende Mark F. Thereafter, the defendan e Trial Court n conclusion of the evidence and t of the plaintiff for declaration the relief of permanent injunctio .08.2010, the suit of the plaintiff

tled to the relief of declaration t on of the suit land, being the o h? OPP tled to the permanent injunction ed, whether in the alternative possession of the suit land? OPP not come to the Court with cl al facts from the Court? OPD and 3 are minors and, therefore, nst them? OPD xecuted a legal and valid registe the defendants? OPD laintiff entered the witness box and thereafter closed his eviden 1, Sukhpal Kaur, examined her h, attesting witness of the Will, ered in evidence documents Ex. nts closed their evidence. d arguments, the learned trial Co n and possession in the alternati on. Accordingly, vide judgment f was partly decreed.

- that only n as lean ered x as ce. self DX ourt ive,

Findings of the

13.

parties, first de defendants No. them in the proc

14.

Sukhpal Kaur, t had filed the joi minors and had of appointment defendants, and proceedings in representation o that Sukhpal Ka she had set up th the best of her Guardianship A Accordingly, th the trial court pr

15.

Up Appellate Court set up by the d noted that as pe years at the time assigning any v e Lower Appellate Court e learned Lower Appellate Co ealt with the contention raised 2 and 3 were minors and that n ceedings before the learned trial e learned Lower Appellate Cou the natural guardian and mother int written statement on her own contested the proceedings throu of next friend or guardian ad l d that since their natural gua her own interest as well as i of defendants No. 2 and 3 was s aur had a common interest with he Will on their behalf as well a ability. Being the natural guard Act, she was competent to e court concluded that the minor roceedings and no prejudice had on a careful appreciation of t concurred with the findings of efendants was not free from su er Ex.D1, the Will dated 22.06 e of execution, had disinherited valid reason. The Court observed

ourt, after hearing counsel for on behalf of the defendants t no guardian had been appointed Court. urt, observed that defendant No r of minor defendants No. 2 and n behalf as well as on behalf of ughout. The Court held that the r litem is for the protection of mi ardian had herself contested in the interest of the minors, substantial. It was further observ the minors in the suit property, as her own, and contested the sui dian under the Hindu Minority a represent the minor defenda rs had been properly represented been caused to them. the evidence, the learned Low the learned trial court that the W uspicious circumstances. The Co

6.1999, Tara Singh, aged about his only son, Balbir Singh, with d that ordinarily a father would

- that for . 1, d 3, rule inor ved it to nts. d in wer Will ourt t 72 hout

exclude his only no such circums on record of an his father Tara abroad, which b

16.

unnatural and im strong suspicion being the benef Court also found ever resided wit they had treated herself admitted

17.

Pattar, had not b that Harinder Pa Singh. His testi Will was also no in terms of Secti

18.

In t Ex.D1 dated 22 been proved to concurred with t validity of the W y son from inheritance without c stances had been shown in the p ny estrangement, bad blood, or l Singh. The only ground sugge by itself was not a valid reason to e Court further found that th mprobable, and that where a disp n which the propounder of the ficiaries under the Will, had fa d that there was no documentary th the defendants, nor was there d him during illness. On the contr d that Tara Singh used to cultivat e Court also observed that the been examined, and that even D attar had attested the Will in his imony was totally silent on this ot examined. Thus, the requirem ion 63 of the Succession Act wa these circumstances, the Lower .06.1999 was surrounded by sus have been validly executed by the learned trial Court that the de Will.

compelling circumstances, and t resent case. There was no evide litigation between the plaintiff ested was that the plaintiff resi o disinherit him. he disposition under Ex.D1 w position appears unnatural, it rai Will must dispel. The defenda ailed to discharge this burden. T y evidence to prove that Tara Sin any medical evidence to show t rary, defendant No. 1 Sukhpal K te his land during his lifetime. second attesting witness, Harin DW2 Amarjit Singh did not dep presence or in the presence of T s aspect. Further, the scribe of ment of attestation by two witnes as not duly proved. Appellate Court held that the W spicious circumstances and had y Tara Singh. The Court theref efendants had failed to establish

- that nce ded was ises nts, ngh that Kaur nder pose Tara sses Will not

19.

Con that the plaintiff the suit property not in possessio of declaration injunction. The

20.

Fee and decrees dat Second Appeal.

21.

Up Submissions of

22.

It i disinheriting the the admitted appellants/defen residing abroad for the testator's

23.

It learned Courts

22.6.1999 was n Pattar was not e proof under Sec attesting witnes witness was not nsequently, the Court upheld th ff, being the sole Class-I heir of y. It further held that since it was on of the suit property, the trial c and possession in the alternat appeal filed by the defendants w eling aggrieved the appellants c ted 10.8.2010 and 8.9.2012 of

on notice, respondent appeared a f learned counsel for the appell is argued that finding of the C e plaintiff -Balbir Singh has been facts the testator lived wit ndants in his old age while t for decades, those background s disposition. is further contended by learned below erred in holding that t not proved merely because one examined. The Will is a registe ction 68 of the Evidence Act wa ss DW-2 Amarjit Singh. Non fatal in the circumstances of the

he finding of the learned trial Co f Tara Singh, was entitled to inh s further found that the plaintiff w court had rightly granted the dec tive, while declining the relief was thus dismissed. challenge the impugned judgme the Courts below, in this Regu and contested the appeal. lants Courts below that "no reason n given is wholly unsustainable. th and was cared for by the respondent/plaintiff had b facts constitute a valid explanat d counsel for the appellant that the registered Will (Ex.D1) da of the attesting witnesses-Harin ered instrument and the mandat as complied with by examining n-examination of the co-attest e case.

- ourt herit was cree f of ents ular for On een tion ated nder tory one

24.

It i standards laying be examined an simultaneous pr the lower courts

25.

Lea court's adverse established (for medical bills) is displace the pos

26.

instrument gives burden to establ burden which th

27.

cross-examinati arrival of son ignorance about all of which go those who actua

28.

maintainable ag event the natura shown.

is further contended that the l g down an over-strict requiremen nd must have signed the Will in resence of the testator; there is no s wrongly went beyond pleadings arned counsel further submitted reliance on "suspicious circums example, alleged absence of do s unjustified; mere absence of sitive testimony and the registere e Courts below failed to ap s rise to a strong presumption in lish suspicious circumstances lie he plaintiff failed to discharge. e learned Courts below overlo on of PW-1-plaintiff in partic of testator, lack of his partici t who lit the pyre, admissions ab to show the plausibility of the te ally looked after him. e learned Courts below erred gainst minor defendants withou al guardian had contested the suit

lower Courts misapplied the le nt that both attesting witnesses m n each other's presence and in o such rigid requirement in law s in this regard. d that the trial court's and appel stances" that were never pleaded ocumentary proof of residence documents of certain kinds can ed nature of Ex.D1. ppreciate that registration of favour of genuineness, and that es on the party assailing the wil ooked material admissions in cular his admission about delay ipation in last rites/cremation, bout his longtime residence abro estator's making a will in favour d in holding that the suit w ut adequate representation. In t on their behalf and no prejudic

- egal must late d or nnot ll, a y in his oad, r of was any

Submission of l

29.

Lea appeal and urg disinherits the o improbable disp a father does no reasons are on r

30.

It attestation. Ex.D produced only o attesting witness testimony of DW i.e., DW-2 did n and in the prese impair the credib

31.

It is proof. The defe testator habitual or medical bills has been produ defendants' case

32.

Lea possibility of f plaint pleads tha that the testator learned counsel for the Respon arned counsel for the responden ged that it is a case of unnatu only natural Class-I heir, the p position and therefore attracts su ot disinherit his only son withou ecord. is further contended that ther D1 purportedly has two attest one i.e. DW-2 Amarjit Singh in e s, was not examined and no coge W-2 is silent about the presence not state that Harinder Pattar als ence of the testator. Scribe was bility of the propounded Will. s further submitted that there is a endants failed to produce docum lly resided with them as no ration or hospital records to show sus uced. The absence of such co e. arned counsel for the respon forgery/impersonation/undue inf at Ex.D1 was procured by impe r lacked testamentary capacity.

ndent nt strongly opposed the grounds ural disposition. The Will (Ex.D laintiff, which is an unnatural uspicious circumstances. Ordina ut compelling reasons and no su re are deficiencies in proof a ting witnesses but the defenda evidence. Harinder Pattar, the ot ent explanation has been given. T e and attestation by Harinder Pa so attested the Will in her prese also not examined. These lacu absence of supporting document mentary evidence to show that n card, no voter card in their fav stained treatment by the defenda orroborative material weakens ndent/plaintiff further argued t fluence cannot be ruled out. T ersonation and undue influence The defendants have not rebut

- s of D1) arily uch ants ther attar nce unae tary vour ants that

these allegation freeness of will witness are insu

33.

case of Lalitabe 2009(1) RCR (C that suspicious sufficiently expl to be suspicious Findings

34.

Thi counsel for the of the courts bel

35.

Reg it is here by sub years at the tim disputed that h abroad for many Singh shows th They provided legitimate consi nursed him. PW for a very long came to India th He did not brin ns by cogent evidence. The on and due execution. Mere regist ufficient where suspicious circum e plaintiff relied upon a judgmen en Jayantilal Popat Vs. Pragna Civil) 715 which hold that the W circumstances will invalidat lains them. It was argued that the s and their concurrent findings de is Court has considered the r parties and gone through the rec low. garding disinheritance of only s bmitted that the testator, Tara S me of Ex.D1 and had no near re is wife was deceased and his y years. The evidence of DW-1 hat the defendants looked after care and treatment. These ba iderations for the testator to exe W-1 has admitted in cross-exami period; that he did not attend hree weeks after the death and th ng his father to UK. He did n

nus is on the propounder to sh tration of Will and a single attest mstances exist. nt of Hon'ble Supreme Court in aben Jamnadas Kataria & Oth Will must be properly attested e a will unless the propoun e lower courts correctly held Ex eserve to be upheld. respective contentions of learn cord as well as concurrent findi on by the testator, being unnatu ingh, was an elderly man about elatives to look after him. It is only son,the plaintiff, had sett Sukhpal Kaur and DW-3 Jogin the testator during his last ye ackground facts are relevant ecute a will in favour of those w ination that he was resident abr to his father in his illness; that at he did not know who lit the py not produce medical bills or ot

- how ting hers nder .D1 ned ings ural. t 72 not tled nder ars. who oad t he yre.

documentary p admissions fatal forgery/imperso legal maxim i Disinheritance o has lived abroa effectively ceas The trial and ap appellate courts

36.

Sup Savithri & Othe Hon'ble Court in "19 fac circ bac was not los sist was

Kee Court is of the c is disinherited b proof to contradict defendant lly undermine the plaintiff's alle onation/undue influence. Backgr is that the testator's motive of a distant son who has not dis ad for decades is not inheren ed performing filial duties and ppellate courts ignored these sali ought to have evaluated the Wil pport is derived from the judgm ers Vs. Karthyayani Amma & O n para 19 thereof observed as un

¶9Deprivation of a due share b ctor which would lead to the con cumstances. For the said purp ckground facts should also be s not meeting his father. He had t even meeting the expenses for t his job till his death in 1978 ter and her children. If in that eir favour, no exception thereto c s left for the appellant. eping in view the aforesaid fac considered view that there is noth by the testator under a validly exe

ts' claim of caregiving. Th egation that the will is a product round facts justify disposition. T is a matter for considerati scharged filial obligations and w ntly unnatural when the son h other near relatives provided ca ient background facts. The trial ll in that background. ment of Hon'ble Supreme Cour Ors. [2007(4) RCR (Civil) 749]. T nder:- by the natural heirs itself is no nclusion that there exist suspici pose, as noticed hereinbefore, taken into consideration. The d not been attending to him. He w his treatment from 1959, when

¶8The testator was living with situation, if he executed a Wil can be taken. Even then, someth cts and settled position of law, t hing unnatural if a class-I legal h ecuted Will. The law recognizes

- hese t of ion. who had are. t in ot a ious son was n he his l in hing this

right of a testato mere exclusion invalid. What is and attestation o present case.

37.

Com other attesting w the attesting wit in the presence agreement with circumstances. W 68 of the Evide attesting witnes was examined a the testator. The and could not b per se. The law every case Exa instrument are circumstances. T not ipso facto fa

38.

Sim The defendants the precise mech facts of execut or to dispose off his property in a of natural heir does not by it s material is the free volition of of the Will in accordance with la ming to the finding of the Cou witness does not prove the due e tnesses have not put their signatu e of each other and testator. T h this .Proof by one attesting While Section 63 of the Successi nce Act permits proof of execut ss. In the present case DW-2 A and has deposed to the formal ex e co-attesting witness Harinder be produced; this non-productio does not require that both attest amination of one credible atte e adequate unless the plain The mere fact of non-examinatio atal. milarly, evidence of scribe or sim were not obliged to call the scrib hanical manner the lower courts tion; silence as to whether th

accordance with his wishes, and tself render the Will suspicious f the testator and the due execut aw, which stand duly proved in urts below that non-examination execution of the Will and that b ures on Will simultaneously at sa This court does not find itself g witness is sufficient under ion Act requires attestation, Sect tion by examination of at least Amarjit Singh, an attesting witne ecution of Ex.D1 in the presence Pattar was resident abroad (Spa on is explicable and not suspici ting witnesses must be examined esting witness and the registe ntiff points to strong contr on of the second attesting witnes multaneous signing is not necessa be or prove simultaneous signing required. DW-2 has deposed to he other attesting witness sign

- s or tion n of both ame f in tion one ess, e of ain) ous d in ered rary ss is ary. g in

"simultaneously adverse inferenc examined when

39.

For Supreme Court Rukminibai Vis judgment, it has "5. reg Suc dow it s dire mo his wit Sec wit

A s

(D) through LR Hon'ble Suprem "W infe him y" does not impeach the will. Th ce merely because the scribe or t a reasonable explanation of fore r this, support is also derived in Ramabai Padamakar Patil shnu Vekhande [2003(4) RCR s been held as under:-

………it will be useful to garding acceptance and proof ccession Act deals with execut wn that the testator shall sign or shall be signed by some other p ection. It further lays down that re witnesses, each of whom has mark to the Will or has seen s e presence and by the direction tnesses shall sign the Will i ction 68 of the Evidence Act man tness in proof of a Will, whether similar view has been taken by H Rs Vs. Kalanjiam and Others [2 me Court was of the view that :- Where a testator asks a person to ference that he was admitting th m. There is no express prescript

he lower courts erred in drawing the second attesting witness was eign residence exists. d from the judgment of Hon'

(D) through LRs and Others R (Civi) 92. In para 5 of the s briefly notice the legal posit f of a Will. Section 63 of Ind tion of unprivileged Wills. It l r shall affix his mark to the Will person in his presence and by the Will shall be attested by two seen the testator signing or affix some other person sign the Will n of the testator and each of in the presence of the testa ndates examination of one attest registered or not." Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganes 2019(3) RCR (Civil) 843] where o attest his Will, it is a reasona hat the Will had been executed tion in the statute that the testa

- g an not 'ble Vs. said tion dian lays l or his o or xing l, in tor. ting san able d by

mu only

40.

Lea Popat's case (su and the desirab decision, howev following reason

¶1eith ma for diff wit

¶2con irre pre his

¶3rigi reg cou st necessarily sign the will in p ly or that the two attesting witn e will simultaneously at the same e testator." arned counsel for the responde upra) a decision which emphas bility (in many cases) of exa ver, is distinguishable on its fa ns: In the reported decision relie her both attesting witnesses to aterial circumstances which rende satisfactorily establishing the W fferent: Ex.D1 is a registered ins tness (DW-2) has been examined In the reported case the fac ntradictions in the attesting egularities which warranted rejec esent case the attesting witness D execution; the non-examination residence abroad and is not show Therefore, the ratio of the c id form so as to require exclu gistered will and credible test upled with plaintiff's own admis

presence of the attesting witnes nesses must put their signatures e time in presence of each other a ent relied on Lalitaben Jayant sises the need for proper attestat amining attesting witnesses. T acts from the present case for ed upon, the factual matrix requi be examined or there were ot ered examination of both necess Will. The present case is materia strument and one credible attest d and has identified the execution cts also involved such lacunae witness'es testimony or glar ction of the will. In contrast, in DW-2 has spoken consistently ab n of Harinder Pattar is explained wn to be a deliberate concealmen cited authority cannot be applied usion of Ex.D1 in the face o timony of one attesting witne sions which weaken his challeng

- sses s on tilal tion That ired ther sary ally ting n. ring bout d by nt. d in of a ess,

For parallel or contr sustain the co circumstances.

41.

Kee Act and Section law requires a W attesting witness unequivocally s examination of document, so lo stands satisfied.

42.

Thi the examination due execution. W Succession Act has duly prove examination of t

43.

It i pleas regarding speak of impers on the other han lines of attack evidence such eyewitness acco r these reasons, the judgment rolling precedent on the facts an oncurrent finding that Ex.D1 eping in view the mandate of S n 68 of the Indian Evidence Act Will to be attested by at least two s is sufficient to prove its due ex supports the execution and at f the other attesting witness d ong as the statutory requirement is Court has no hesitation in hol n of the scribe of the Will as a What is material is the complia and Section 68 of the Evidence ed the execution and attestati the scribe does not cast any doub is relevant to mention here tha the execution of the will. The p sonation (i.e., some other person nd of undue influence being exe are inconsistent and, crucially as medical records, contem ount. The plaintiff has failed to

cited by the respondent is no nd cannot be invoked as a ground is vitiated by fatal suspici Section 63 of the Indian Success t, it is well settled that although o witnesses, the examination of xecution, provided that such witn ttestation of the Will. The n does not vitiate the proof of of examining one attesting witn lding that the law does not mand condition precedent for proving ance with Section 63 of the Ind e Act, and once an attesting witn ion of the Will, the mere n bt on its validity. at plaintiff has taken contradict plaintiff's charges on the one h n appeared in place of testator), ercised upon the testator. These t y, none is supported by mate mporaneous conduct, or credi o produce any medical evidence

- ot a d to ous sion one ness non-ness date g its dian ness non-tory two erial ible

show the testa evidence of und

44.

after execution will militates str date of executio

¶45More genuineness, th registration rais rebuttable, shift circumstances. sufficient to reb decision of Ho Others Vs. Meta Court affirmed t "Th reg of reg its

Thi Will is not com presumption of coupled with th sound and dispo tor lacked testamentary capac due influence or impersonation. e Court cannot ignore the fact of Ex.D1 (till October 2003). H rongly against an assumption th on. eover, in relation to registe e Court finds that the instrume es a strong presumption of genu ts the burden on the party attac The plaintiff has not placed but that presumption. The reaso n'ble Supreme Court in Metpa apalli Muthaih (D) by LRs [202 the trial Court's decision in para he Will, is a registered documen garding genuineness thereof. The the Will based on the evidenc gistered document, the burden w existence thereof." is Court is persuaded to hold th mpulsorily registerable under genuineness in favour of the d he endorsement of the registerin osing state of mind of the testato

city, and has failed to show that the testator lived for mon His longevity after the execution hat he was of unsound mind on ered Will and presumption ent Ex.D1 is a registered Will uineness. The presumption which cking the Will to show suspici on record cogent circumstan oning finds corroboration from alli Lasum Bai (since dead) a 25 INSC 879] wherein the Hon' 9 as below-mentioned:- nt and thus there is a presumpt e trial Court accepted the execut ce led before it. As the Will i would lie on the party who dispu hat it is well settled that althoug law, yet its registration carrie document. The fact of registrati ng authority, lends assurance to or at the time of execution, and a

- any nths n of of h is ous nces 'ble tion tion is a uted gh a es a ion,

as an additiona non-registration serves as a valua

¶46O registered, (ii) admissions by P testator's final impersonation/u Court that the p successfully disp

47.

On Court correctly statement and c prejudice to the

¶48On th by suspicious c should be set asi

49.

On Court correctly statement and c prejudice to the Conclusion

50.

For

¶1def al circumstance dispelling suspi n does not detract from its vali able corroborative factor in prov On weighing probabilities, the the credible testimony of D PW-1 about his long absence a days, and (iv) absence of undue influence or lack of test presumption in favour of the ge placed by the plaintiff. n the point of the natural guar observed that Sukhpal Kaur as ontested the suit on behalf of th minors appears on record; this li he above premises, the impugned ircumstances are unsustainable ide. The registered will should b n the point of the natural guar observed that Sukhpal Kaur as ontested the suit on behalf of th minors appears on record; this li r the reasons recorded above: The registered will Ex.D1 d fendants has been satisfactoril

icion surrounding the Will. Wh idity, registration, where availab ving its due execution. combination of (i) Ex.D1 be W-2 who attested the will, ( abroad and non-involvement in convincing, cogent evidence tamentary capacity, persuades t enuineness of Ex.D1 has not b rdian/minors, the Lower Appell natural guardian filed joint writ he minor defendants. No substan imb of attack is without merit. d findings that Ex.D1 is surroun and the decree granted to plain be accepted as genuine. rdian/minors, the Lower Appell natural guardian filed joint writ he minor defendants. No substan imb of attack is without merit. dated 22.6.1999 propounded by ly proved on the record by

- hile ble, eing

(iii) of this een late tten ntial ded ntiff late tten

test fac reg

¶2tain bec infl

(b) not

¶3imp

8.9

4.

51.

Pen

September 15, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh timony of an attesting witness t of registration. The presumpti gistration and the credible oral te plaintiff. The concurrent findings of th nted by suspicious circumstance cause (a) the plaintiff has not fluence or lack of testamentary the non-examination of the sec t in the circumstances fatal. Accordingly, the Regular pugned judgments and decrees

9.2012 (lower appellate court) are The plaintiff's suit for declar nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

(DW-2 Amarjit Singh) and by ion of genuineness that arises fr estimony has not been displaced he courts below rejecting Ex.D1 es are unsustainable on the rec t proved impersonation or und capacity with cogent material, cond attesting witness and scrib Second Appeal is allowed. T dated 10.8.2010 (trial court) e set aside. ration and possession is dismisse stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing

- rom d by 1 as cord due e is