Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirpal Singh vs Surinder Kaur on 9 March, 2026
Author: Amarinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Amarinder Singh Grewal
RSA-4207-2004(O&M)
2004(O&M) -1-
CR-5793-2004(O&M)
2004(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104 (2 cases) RSA No.4207 of 2004(O&M)
Reserved on:20.02.2026
Pronounced on:0
on:09.03.2026
Upl
Uploaded on:10.03.2026
Kirpal Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Surinder Kaur and others ...Respondents
2. CR-5793-2004(O&M)
2004(O&M)
Kirpal Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate,
for the appellant in RSA-4207-2004
RSA 2004 and
for petitioner in CR-5793-2004.
CR
Mr. Mohd. Yusaf, Advocate,
for the respondent(s) in both the cases.
***
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. This order shall dispose of the regular second appea appeall bearing No.4207 of 2004 and civil revision No.5793 of 2004, 2004, as they arise out of similar cause of action. Defendant efendant No.1 is the appellant before this Court in regular second appeal and the petitioner in the revision petition, challenging the judgment an and d decree dated 20.08.2004 passed by the learned 1st A Appellate ppellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs respondents plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 1 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -2- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) 23.10.2001 of the learned trial Court was partly allowed and while reversing the finding of learned trial Court on issues No.1 and 55-A, the learned 1st Appellate Court had discarded the Will dated 23.02.1990, Ex.D1 and granted succession certificate to the extent of 1/6th share each in favour of class class-1 1 heirs of Kartar Singh. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from RSA No.4207 of 2004 and the parties are being referred to in terms of their sstatus tatus before the learned trial Court.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the land in dispute as described in thee head note of the plaint was owned and possessed by Kartar Singh, father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.1, and husband of plaintiff No.5. Kartar Singh died, and after his death, his entire estate was inherited by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 No.1 in six equal shares. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are living abroad, and after the death of Kartar Singh, the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession of the land in dispute through their attorney, Gurdev Singh. Defendant No.1 1 started threatening g to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute through hhis attorney, defendant No.2-Dhian Dhian Singh. The plaintiffs requested the said defendants on several occasions to admit their claim, but the defendants had flatly refused efused to do so, leading the institution of the present suit.
3. Upon issuance of summons, defendants appeared through counsel and contested the suit by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in dispute, as deceased Kartar Singh, during his life--time time bequeathed his entire estate in favour of defendant No.1 by virtue of a Will dated 23.02.1990 in lieu of services rendered to him by defendant 2 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -3- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) No.1,, and thus defendant No.1 is the owner in po possession ssession of the suit land. It was pleaded that Gurdev Singh is not the duly authorized attorney of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. Further, it was objected that the suit was bad for misjoinder of Dhian Singh as defendant No.2, who was not acting in his personal capacity but as attorney of defendant No.1. The suit was further stated to be not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in dispute and defendant No.1 is in possession thereof through his attorney, defendant ndant No.2. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, they were not entitled to discretionary relief as sought for,, and in the garb of the present suit, they attempted to take forcible possession possession of the suit land. By way of counter counter-claim, claim, it was pleaded that in case, during the pendency of the suit, suit, defendant No.1 is dispossessed, a decree for declaration to the effect that defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of land measuring 164 kanals 6 marlas, on the basis of the Will dated 23.02.1990, or in the alternative a decree for possession thereof be passed in his favour favour.
4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as six issues including relief. On appreciation of or oral al as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants-
appellants plaintiffs for permanent injunction and allowed the succession application of defendant No.1. However, the appeal preferred by appellants appellants-plaintiffs aintiffs was partly allowed by the learned 1st Appellate Court and while discarding the he Will dated 23.02.1990, Ex.D1, the succession certificate was modified to the extent that Class I legal heirs is entitled to 1/6th share each of defendant No.1 along with other Class-I 3 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -4- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) the estate of deceased-Kartar deceased Singh. Hence, the aforesaid regular second appeal and the civil revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the for the appellant appellant-defendant defendant No.1 in RSA No.4207 of 2004 and for petitioner in CR No.5793 of 2004 contended that the learned 1st Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record proving the Will dated 23.02.1990, executed by late Kartar Singh in favour of the appellant-defendant defendant No.1 in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1925), as it stood duly proved through DW2 Trethal Singh Bhambra, an attesting/marginal witness, who categorically proved its execution by Kartar Singh in the presence of both attesting witnesses, namely himself and Balbir Singh Gill, including the fact that the other witness signed the Will in the presence of the testator. It was further contended that the respondents-
respondents plaintiffs did not specifically deny the execution of the Will and, in fact, took contradictory pleas pleas in the replication by alleging fraud, impersonation and forgery, thereby blowing hot and cold in the same breath. It was further submitted that the appellant duly proved that he was taking care of his father during his lifetime, which stands corroborated from the death certificate certificate, Ex.D2 showing the appellant's presence in the hospital at the time of death, as well as from the passport of Kartar Singh, establishing cordial relations between the father and son.
6. He further submitted submit that the learned 1st Appellate Court has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW6-Jagir Jagir Singh, power of attorney of respondent-
respondent plaintiffs, who was not even conversant with the family of Kartar Singh and even failed to identify photographs of family members, rendering his tes testimony timony unreliable and insufficient to prove the plaintiffs' case. It was argued that the 4 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -5- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) genuineness of the Will stood conclusively proved through DW3 Sardar Singh Parmar, Handwriting Expert, who compared the disputed signatures on the Will with admitted signatures s of Kartar Singh ingh on his passport, Ex.D3 and opined that the Will bears his genuine signatures, whereas the report and testimony of PW7 Arvind Sood, the plaintiffs' handwriting expert, could not be relied upon as he admitted that photographs of signatures signatures were taken without notice to or presence of he learned 1st the appellant or his counsel and without any specific court order. The Appellate Court erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove that he looked after his father, ignoring documentary evidence on record, and further erred in drawing adverse inference merely on the ground that the appellant and his father were residing separately in the U.K., which was due to the large family of Kartar Singh. It was further contended that the learned 1st Appellate Court wrongly presumed suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will merely because one attesting witness was known to the appellant and the other was not examined, despite the law permitting proof of a Will by examinatio examinationn of even one attesting witness. The respondents-plaintiffs respondents miserably ly failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, Ex.D Ex.D-1. It was also submitted that the learned 1st Appellate Court wrongly held the Will to be unnatural on the ground that no reasons were assigned for disinheriting the wife and unmarried daughter, ignoring the fact that the Will was executed in the U.K. in simple terms to give effect to the testator's last wish and was drafted by a U.K. based advocate dvocate without reference reference to Indian drafting formalities. Lastly, it was contended that in the absence of any evidence led by respondents to prove unsoundness of mind, the learned 1st Appellate Court gravely erred in holding that 5 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -6- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) the testator was not in sound disposing mind merely because he died about a month after execution of the Will, despite clear evidence that Kartar Singh personally visited the advocate's office along with witnesses at the time of execution. In support of aforesaid contentions, reliance reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Smt. Sunita Devi v. Smt. Shalu Devi, 2022(3) Law Herald 2586 as well as judgment dgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Apex Court in Ramabai Padamakar Patil (D) through LRs. v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande 2003 (8) SCC 537.
7. Per contra, con , learned counsel for the respondents in both cases submitted that the alleged Will, Ex.D1 is an unregistered document and, therefore, requires strict proof, which the appellant-defendant appellant defendant No.1 has failed to discharge. It was contended that a bare perusal perusal of the document shows that it is not a Will whereas it is a gift in substance, which required compulsory registration and being unregistered, cannot confer ownership. It was further argued that the document does not mention the age, parentage or residenc residence of testator-Kartar Singh and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was executed by him.. The document is alleged to be forged and fabricated, as no person would prefix his own name with "Mr." while executing such a document, and there is unnatural spacing between the writing and the signatures of the executant and the witnesses, whereas atte attestation station requires the witnesses to sign alongside the executant in his presence. Furthermore, the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, as it is unnatural that Kartar Singh would execute the Will in the presence of witnesses who were not his close associates and who, as admitted by DW2 and DW3, were friends of Kirpal Singh, hence, making them interested witnesses. The testimony of DW2 itself shows that Kartar Singh and Kirpal Singh were residing separately as Kartar Singh was living 6 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -7- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) with his wife and and unmarried daughter, and yet the entire estate is alleged to have been bequeathed to the appellant, making the disposition unnatural and unbelievable, particularly when no provision was made for the unmarried daughter. It was further contended that the appellant appellant never stepped into the witness box, and the evidence of DW2 and DW3 rather supports the plaintiffs' case. Additional suspicion was alleged on the ground that Kartar Singh did not discuss execution of the Will with the attesting witnesses and that Balbir Singh Gill allegedly met Kartar Singh by chance and was not called by him. It was also submitted that the Will does not assign any reason for disinheriting the wife and daughters, with whom Kartar Singh was residing, nor for bequeathing everything tto o the appellant, rendering it unnatural and suspicious in light of settled law. It was further argued that the document does not contain any specific description of the property and vaguely states that the testator gives everything owned in England and Ind India, ia, which itself shows that the document is forged and fabricated. Reliance was placed on the report and testimony of PW7 Arvind Sood, Handwriting Expert, who proved that the disputed signatures on the Will do not tally with the admitted signatures of the deceased. It was further contended that Kartar Singh died within one month of the alleged execution of the Will due to brain haemorrhage and there is no evidence to show that he was in sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will, Ex.D1. Lastly, y, it was submitted that all revenue authorities have disbelieved the Will and upheld mutation on the basis of natural succession, and all appeals and revisions filed by the appellant before the revenue authorities were dismissed. In support of his contention, content he relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Nimbo v. Satyabir Singh, 1995 (1) CivCC 224; Avtar Singh v. Bhagi, 1993 (sup) 7 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -8- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) CivCC 301 as well as the judgment dgment rendered by the Hon'ble A Apex Court in Kartar Kaur v. Milkho (1996) 11 SCC 626 and Shivakumar ivakumar v. Sharanabasappa AIR 2020 (SC) 3102.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book as well as the case laws cited with their able assistance.
9. Vide order dated 22.01.2008, thiss Court while admitting the reg gular second appeal had h framed the following substanntial questions of law:-
"1. Whether the propounder of thhe Will in order to establish the Will is also to establish that he had beeen serving his father so as to show s thee due execution of the Will?
2. Whether residing separately ffrom the testator of the Will, the pro opounder can be presumed thatt he did not render services forr his fatther?
3. Whether non-mentioning or exclluding the other heirs of the testtator i.e.. the daughter and the wife off the testator and bequeathing g the enttire property to the son would reequire the testator also to show wife and daughters?"
a to why he was excluding his w as
10. One ne of the important features which distinguishes 'Will' from other documents is that the 'Will' speaks from the date of death of the testator, estator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, testator estator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his 'Will' or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element element of solemnity in the decision of the question, whether the document propounded is proved to be the last 'Will' and testament of the departed testator. Therefore, the propounder of 'Will' must prove, ((i)) that the 'Will' was signed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind duly understanding the nature and effect of disposition and he put his signature on the 8 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -9- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) document of his own free will; (ii) ( ) when the evidence adduced in support of the 'Will' is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient tto o prove the sound and disposing state of testator's estator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder; and, ((iii)) if a 'Will' is challenged as surrounded by suspicious circumstances, all such llegitimate egitimate doubts have to be removed by cogent, satisfactory and sufficient evidence to dispel suspicion.
11. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, (2023) 9 SCC 734, following principles were inferred, which are required to be satisfied:-
satisfied "i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him;
ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, bbut ut the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied. iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;
(b) It is mandatory to get get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
9 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -10- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M)
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;
iv. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined; v. The attesting witness should spea speakk not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator;
vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispe dispensed with;
vii. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence; viii. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution ooff the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier. ix. The test of judicial conscience has be been en evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dis dispositions positions in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will;
x. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if prove there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation.
explanation."
10 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 :::
RSA-4207-2004(O&M)
2004(O&M) -11-
CR-5793-2004(O&M)
2004(O&M)
12. The factors required to consider where the case set up is that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances are; (i) awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, (ii) nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will; (iii) sound, certain and disposing state of mind of the testator; (iv) memory of the testator at the time of execution execution and (v) testator executed the Will while ile acting on his own free Will.
13. There is no doubt to the proposition that deprivation of natural heirs should nott raise any suspicion because idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. But deprivation of natural heirs, who were living with the testator and who served him till his last breath definitely raises a suspicion and therefore, it became the duty of the propounder of the Will to dispel such suspicious circumstance by giving cogent and convincing explanation. In the present case, it is admitted position that the testator testator-Kartar Kartar Singh was living with his wife and unmarried daughter and the propounder of the Will, Kirpal Singh, was living separately and thus, disinheritance of wife and unmarried daughter by the testator on the ground that his son, Kirpal Singh, was serving him, does not seem plausible. Interestingly, the propounder, who had to dispel the suspicious circumstances raised by the respondents respondents-plaintiffs, plaintiffs, did not step into the witness box. The attesting witness DW2, T.S. Bhambra, who pr proved oved the Will in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 as well as other attesting witness were friends of Kirpal Singh and thus, they were interested witnesses. DW2 categorically admitted in his testimony that Kartar Singh was residing at a distance of 6 kms from the house of Kirpal Singh with his wife and unmarried daughter and, therefore,, the argument that Kirpal Singh was looking after Kartar Singh falls flat.
11 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 :::
RSA-4207-2004(O&M)
2004(O&M) -12-
CR-5793-2004(O&M)
2004(O&M)
Furthermore, it had also come on record that Kartar Singh was working with Delta Builders in England till his death, thus, he was not dependent on any one for his livelihood. There is not a whisper in the Will that the testator Kartar Singh bequeathed his estate to Kirpal Singh in lieu of services rendered by Kirpal Singh to him and that he disinherited disinherited all other legal heirs due to the said fact. The learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly observed that the testator was living with his wife and unmarried daughter and was taking their responsibility as he earned till his death, thus, there was no reason for him to disinherit them altogether. Although one of the attesting ttesting witnesses deposed in accordance with Section 63 of the Act of 1925,, he was an interested witness, being a friend of the propounder of the Will. Consequently, it appears that he may have been tutored to give testimony in line with Section 63 of the Act of 1925 so as to create an impression that the alleged Will was a genuine document. Neither the scribe nor the other marginal witness was examined. The learned 1st Appellate Court, after carefully examining the reports of the respective handwriting experts produced by appellant appellant-defendant defendant No. 1 and respondents-plaintiffs, respondents plaintiffs, concluded that the formation of the words in the disputed signatures was markedly different from that of the specimen signatures. Accordingly, it relied upon the report submitted by PW-7, 7, Arvind Sood, which, in the opinion of this Court, was rightly done.
14. The judgment judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Ramabai's case (supra) is not applicable to the present case, as in the said case, it was proved on record that propounder of the alleged Will was living with her parents after she became widow and looked after them for more than 20 years. The testator of the Will herself gone to the office of Sub Sub-Registrar Registrar for the purposes of 12 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 ::: RSA-4207-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) -13- CR-5793-2004(O&M) 2004(O&M) registration of the Will and she died 3 years and 9 months thereafter. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is most natural for the parents to have the greatest amount of sympathy for their widowed daughter and therefore, execution of the Will favour of widowed daughter, who looked after the testator for over 20 years, appeared to be most natural and probable. However, in the present case, the testator had disinherited his wife and unmarried daughter with whom he was residing and made made a Will in favour of son, who was living separately, thus, said testamentary inheritance does not appear natural.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant-
appellant defendant No.1 1 and the substantial questions oof law as framed by this Courtt are decided againstt the appellant-defendant No.1 and in favour of the respondeents- plaintiffs. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2004 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court are upheld and the instan instant regular second appeal as well as the civil revision petition are dismissed.
16. Miscellaneous application(s) pendiing,, if any, also stand disposed of.
(AMARINDER AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) GREWAL JUDGE March 09,, 2026 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 13 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:32:46 :::