RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O IN T 104 (2 cases) Kirpal Singh Surinder Kaur an 2. CR-5793-20 Kirpal Singh Surinder Kaur an CORAM: HON Present: Mr. for t for p Mr. for t *** AMARINDER S 1. This of 2004 and civi action. Defendan and the petitione dated 20.08.2004 preferred by the 2004(O&M) -1- 004(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA RSA Res Pron Upl Versus
aur and others 2004(O&M) Versus

aur and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate,
for the appellant in RSA-4207-2004 for petitioner in CR-5793-2004.
Mr. Mohd. Yusaf, Advocate,
for the respondent(s) in both the case ***
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. This order shall dispose of the regul d civil revision No.5793 of 2004, as fendant No.1 is the appellant before t titioner in the revision petition, chal 8.2004 passed by the learned 1st A by the respondents-plaintiffs against PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH
RSA No.4207 of 2004(O&M) Reserved on:20.02.2026 Pronounced on:09.03.2026 Uploaded on:10.03.2026
... Appellant ...Respondents
... Petition ...Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL 2004 and
he cases.
e regular second appeal bearing No.42 , as they arise out of similar cause efore this Court in regular second appe , challenging the judgment and decr Appellate Court whereby the appe gainst the judgment and decree dat ellant
etitioner
dents
No.4207 cause of d appeal d decree e appeal ee dated PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O 23.10.2001 of th finding of learne Court had discar certificate to the Singh. For the s 2004 and the par trial Court. 2. Succ described in the h father of plaintif Kartar Singh die plaintiffs and def are living abroad exclusive posses Defendant No.1 plaintiffs over th Singh. The plain their claim, but th the present suit. 3. Upo contested the sui the plaintiffs are during his life- virtue of a Will d 2004(O&M) -2- 004(O&M) of the learned trial Court was partly learned trial Court on issues No.1 a discarded the Will dated 23.02.1990 to the extent of 1/6th share each in r the sake of convenience, facts are b he parties are being referred to in term Succinctly, the facts of the case e head note of the plaint was own laintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No gh died, and after his death, his en nd defendant No.1 in six equal shares. abroad, and after the death of Kartar possession of the land in dispute thro 1 started threatening to interfere over the land in dispute through h plaintiffs requested the said defenda , but the defendants had flatly refused suit. Upon issuance of summons, defenda the suit by filing a written statement ffs are not the owners of the land in d -time bequeathed his entire estate Will dated 23.02.1990 in lieu of serv partly allowed and while reversing t o.1 and 5-A, the learned 1st Appella 2.1990, Ex.D1 and granted successi ch in favour of class-1 heirs of Kar s are being taken from RSA No.4207 in terms of their status before the learn case are that the land in dispute s owned and possessed by Kartar Sing nt No.1, and husband of plaintiff No his entire estate was inherited by t shares. The plaintiffs and defendant No artar Singh, the plaintiffs have been te through their attorney, Gurdev Sing erfere in the peaceful possession of t his attorney, defendant No.2-Dhi efendants on several occasions to adm efused to do so, leading the institution efendants appeared through counsel a ment taking preliminary objections th nd in dispute, as deceased Kartar Sing estate in favour of defendant No.1 f services rendered to him by defenda rsing the ppellate ccession f Kartar .4207 of e learned spute as ar Singh, iff No.5. by the ant No.1 been in v Singh. n of the Dhian to admit itution of nsel and ions that ar Singh, No.1 by efendant PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O No.1, and thus d pleaded that Gur that the plaintiff objected that the who was not acti suit was further s of the land in d attorney, defend approached the C discretionary reli to take forcible p that in case, dur decree for declar of land measurin or in the alternati 4. On t six issues includi produced before plaintiffs for pe defendant No.1. allowed by the l 23.02.1990, Ex.D defendant No.1 a 2004(O&M) -3- 004(O&M) thus defendant No.1 is the owner in p at Gurdev Singh is not the duly autho laintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit was bad for misjoinder of ot acting in his personal capacity but a rther stated to be not maintainable as d in dispute and defendant No.1 is i ndant No.2. It was further plea d the Court with clean hands and th ry relief as sought for, and in the garb cible possession of the suit land. By wa e, during the pendency of the suit, declaration to the effect that defendan asuring 164 kanals 6 marlas, on the b ternative a decree for possession there On the basis of pleadings, learned t ncluding relief. On appreciation of or before it, the learned trial Court dism for permanent injunction and allowe No.1. However, the appeal preferred y the learned 1st Appellate Court and , Ex.D1, the succession certificate No.1 along with other Class-I legal he er in possession of the suit land. It w authorized attorney of the plaintiffs a to file the present suit. Further, it w der of Dhian Singh as defendant No y but as attorney of defendant No.1. T ble as the plaintiffs are not in possessi .1 is in possession thereof through h r pleaded that the plaintiffs had therefore, they were not entitled e garb of the present suit, they attempt By way of counter-claim, it was plead , defendant No.1 is dispossessed fendant No.1 is the owner in possessi the basis of the Will dated 23.02.199 thereof be passed in his favour. rned trial Court had framed as many of oral as well as documentary eviden rt dismissed the suit of the appellan allowed the succession application erred by appellants-plaintiffs was par rt and while discarding the Will dat ficate was modified to the extent th gal heirs is entitled to 1/6th share each d. It was tiffs and it was nt No.2, o.1. The ssession ough his not titled to ttempted pleaded sessed, a ssession .02.1990, many as evidence pellants- ation of as partly ill dated tent that each of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O the estate of dec and the civil revi 5. Lear No.4207 of 2004 learned 1st Appe proving the Will appellant-defend (hereinafter refer Trethal Singh Bh execution by Ka himself and Balb Will in the prese plaintiffs did no contradictory ple thereby blowing appellant duly p which stands c appellant’s prese passport of Karta 6. He f relied upon the t plaintiffs, who w failed to identif unreliable and in 2004(O&M) -4- 004(O&M) of deceased-Kartar Singh. Hence, th il revision petition. Learned counsel for the for the a f 2004 and for petitioner in CR No. Appellate Court failed to properly a e Will dated 23.02.1990, executed by efendant No.1 in terms of Section 63 o r referred to as the Act of 1925), as i gh Bhambra, an attesting/marginal wi by Kartar Singh in the presence of Balbir Singh Gill, including the fac presence of the testator. It was furthe id not specifically deny the executio ry pleas in the replication by alleging owing hot and cold in the same breath duly proved that he was taking care nds corroborated from the death presence in the hospital at the tim Kartar Singh, establishing cordial rela He further submitted that the learne the testimony of PW6-Jagir Singh, who was not even conversant with the identify photographs of family me and insufficient to prove the plainti ce, the aforesaid regular second appe the appellant-defendant No.1 in RS R No.5793 of 2004 contended that t perly appreciate the evidence on reco ted by late Kartar Singh in favour of t on 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 19 as it stood duly proved through DW nal witness, who categorically proved ce of both attesting witnesses, name he fact that the other witness signed t further contended that the responden xecution of the Will and, in fact, to leging fraud, impersonation and forge breath. It was further submitted that t care of his father during his lifetim death certificate, Ex.D2 showing t he time of death, as well as from t ial relations between the father and son learned 1st Appellate Court has heav ingh, power of attorney of responde ith the family of Kartar Singh and ev ly members, rendering his testimo plaintiffs’ case. It was argued that t d appeal in RSA that the n record ur of the ct, 1925 gh DW2 roved its , namely gned the ondents- act, took forgery, that the lifetime, ing the from the nd son. s heavily pondent- and even timony that the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O genuineness of t Parmar, Handwr with admitted s the Will bears h Arvind Sood, th admitted that pho the appellant or Appellate Court after his father, drawing adverse were residing sep Singh. It was presumed suspic attesting witness despite the law p witness. The res establish suspici submitted that t unnatural on the and unmarried da simple terms to based advocate contended that unsoundness of m 2004(O&M) -5- 004(O&M) ss of the Will stood conclusively pro andwriting Expert, who compared th tted signatures of Kartar Singh on his ears his genuine signatures, whereas od, the plaintiffs’ handwriting expert at photographs of signatures were tak nt or his counsel and without any sp Court erred in holding that the appell ather, ignoring documentary evidenc verse inference merely on the ground ing separately in the U.K., which was further contended that the learn suspicious circumstances surroundin itness was known to the appellant a law permitting proof of a Will by e he respondents-plaintiffs miserably fai uspicious circumstances surrounding that the learned 1st Appellate Cou on the ground that no reasons were a ried daughter, ignoring the fact that th ms to give effect to the testator’s last ocate without reference to Indian dr that in the absence of any eviden ss of mind, the learned 1st Appellate C ely proved through DW3 Sardar Sin red the disputed signatures on the W on his passport, Ex.D3 and opined th ereas the report and testimony of PW expert, could not be relied upon as re taken without notice to or presence any specific court order. The learned appellant failed to prove that he look idence on record, and further erred ground that the appellant and his fath h was due to the large family of Kar e learned 1st Appellate Court wrong ounding the Will merely because o llant and the other was not examine ll by examination of even one attesti ly failed to lead any cogent evidence unding the Will, Ex.D-1. It was Court wrongly held the Will to were assigned for disinheriting the w that the Will was executed in the U.K. r’s last wish and was drafted by a U. ian drafting formalities. Lastly, it evidence led by respondents to pro llate Court gravely erred in holding th ar Singh the Will ined that of PW7 on as he sence of arned 1st e looked erred in is father of Kartar wrongly use one xamined, attesting idence to also ill to be the wife e U.K. in y a U.K. , it was to prove ding that PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O the testator was n after execution o visited the advo support of afores this Court in Sm well as judgmen Patil (D) through 7. Per submitted that th requires strict pro was contended t whereas it is a gi unregistered, can does not mentio therefore, it cann alleged to be forg “Mr.” while exec writing and the s requires the witn the Will is surro Singh would exe associates and w hence, making th Kartar Singh and 2004(O&M) -6- 004(O&M) r was not in sound disposing mind mer ution of the Will, despite clear evide advocate’s office along with witnes aforesaid contentions, reliance is pla Smt. Sunita Devi v. Smt. Shalu D dgment rendered by the Hon’ble Ape ough LRs. v. Rukminibai Vishnu V Per contra, learned counsel for that the alleged Will, Ex.D1 is an unre rict proof, which the appellant-defenda nded that a bare perusal of the docu is a gift in substance, which required cannot confer ownership. It was ention the age, parentage or reside it cannot be presumed that it was ex be forged and fabricated, as no person le executing such a document, and ther d the signatures of the executant and e witnesses to sign alongside the execu surrounded by suspicious circumstan ld execute the Will in the presence of and who, as admitted by DW2 and D king them interested witnesses. The te gh and Kirpal Singh were residing sep merely because he died about a mon evidence that Kartar Singh persona witnesses at the time of execution. is placed on the judgment rendered lu Devi, 2022(3) Law Herald 2586 pex Court in Ramabai Padamak nu Vekhande 2003 (8) SCC 537. l for the respondents in both cas unregistered document and, therefo efendant No.1 has failed to discharge. document shows that it is not a W uired compulsory registration and bei was further argued that the docume residence of testator-Kartar Singh as executed by him. The document person would prefix his own name w nd there is unnatural spacing between t t and the witnesses, whereas attestati e executant in his presence. Furthermo umstances, as it is unnatural that Kar nce of witnesses who were not his clo and DW3, were friends of Kirpal Sing The testimony of DW2 itself shows th ng separately as Kartar Singh was livi a month ersonally ution. In dered by 586 as makar th cases herefore, harge. It t a Will being ocument and, ument is me with ween the station hermore, at Kartar his close al Singh, ows that as living PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O with his wife a been bequeathe unbelievable, par It was further co the evidence of suspicion was all the Will with th Kartar Singh by Will does not as whom Kartar Sin rendering it unna that the documen vaguely states tha itself shows that report and testim the disputed sign deceased. It was alleged execution show that he wa Ex.D1. Lastly, it Will and upheld revisions filed by support of his co Nimbo v. Satyab 2004(O&M) -7- 004(O&M) ife and unmarried daughter, and yet t ueathed to the appellant, making le, particularly when no provision was her contended that the appellant never ce of DW2 and DW3 rather suppor alleged on the ground that Kartar ith the attesting witnesses and that gh by chance and was not called by h not assign any reason for disinherit tar Singh was residing, nor for bequea it unnatural and suspicious in light of cument does not contain any specifi ates that the testator gives everything o s that the document is forged and fabr testimony of PW7 Arvind Sood, Han d signatures on the Will do not tally w was further contended that Kartar S ecution of the Will due to brain haemo he was in sound disposing mind at t y, it was submitted that all revenu pheld mutation on the basis of natura iled by the appellant before the reven his contention, he relied upon the jud tyabir Singh, 1995 (1) CivCC 224; d yet the entire estate is alleged to ha aking the disposition unnatural a on was made for the unmarried daught never stepped into the witness box, a upports the plaintiffs’ case. Addition artar Singh did not discuss execution d that Balbir Singh Gill allegedly m d by him. It was also submitted that t inheriting the wife and daughters, w bequeathing everything to the appella ght of settled law. It was further argu specific description of the property a thing owned in England and India, whi d fabricated. Reliance was placed on t d, Handwriting Expert, who proved th tally with the admitted signatures of t rtar Singh died within one month of t haemorrhage and there is no evidence at the time of execution of the W evenue authorities have disbelieved t natural succession, and all appeals a revenue authorities were dismissed. judgments rendered by this Court 224; Avtar Singh v. Bhagi, 1993 (su to have ral and aughter. box, and dditional cution of edly met that the ers, with ppellant, r argued erty and ia, which ed on the ved that es of the th of the idence to the Will, eved the eals and issed. In Court in 3 (sup) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O CivCC 301 as we Kaur v. Milkho 2020 (SC) 3102. 8. I ha paper book as we 9. Vi second appeal h “ is the 2. pro fat 3. i.e. ent a 10. One documents is tha when it is prop departed the wo naturally introdu whether the docu the departed test 'Will' was signe understanding th 2004(O&M) -8- 004(O&M) as well as the judgment rendered by lkho (1996) 11 SCC 626 and Shiva 102. I have heard learned counsel for as well as the case laws cited with the de order dated 22.01.2008, this had framed the following substan “1. Whether the propounder of th also to establish that he had be e due execution of the Will? Whether residing separately f opounder can be presumed that ther? Whether non-mentioning or excl . the daughter and the wife of tire property to the son would re as to why he was excluding his w ne of the important features whic is that the 'Will' speaks from the dat propounded or produced before a he world cannot say whether it is h ntroduces an element of solemnity e document propounded is proved to ed testator. Therefore, the propounder signed by the testator in a sound a ing the nature and effect of dispositio ed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kart ivakumar v. Sharanabasappa A l for the parties and have perused t ith their able assistance. s Court while admitting the reg ntial questions of law:- he Will in order to establish the een serving his father so as to s from the testator of the Will, t he did not render services for luding the other heirs of the test f the testator and bequeathing equire the testator also to show wife and daughters?” s which distinguishes 'Will' from oth the date of death of the testator, and s ore a Court, testator who has alrea it is his 'Will' or not; and this aspe mnity in the decision of the questio ed to be the last 'Will' and testament ounder of 'Will' must prove, (i) that t und and disposing state of mind du position and he put his signature on t Kartar a AIR used the gular Will show the r his tator g the m other , and so, already is aspect question, ament of that the ind duly re on the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O document of his 'Will' is disintere state of testator's justified in mak challenged as su have to be rem suspicion. 11. In th v. Kamla Pradha are required to be “i. exec exec ii. It test iii. unde (a) T sign the s effec (b) I no p (c) E affix in th from 2004(O&M) -9- 004(O&M) of his own free will; (ii) when the ev sinterested, satisfactory and sufficient stator's mind and his signature as re making a finding in favour of pro as surrounded by suspicious circums e removed by cogent, satisfactory a In the judgment passed by Hon’ble S adhan, (2023) 9 SCC 734, followin d to be satisfied:- “i. The court has to consider two executed by the testator, and sec executed by him; ii. It is not required to be proved wi test of satisfaction of the prudent min iii. A Will is required to fulf under Section 63 of the Succession A (a) The testator shall sign or affix signed by some other person in his the said signature or affixation shal effect to the writing as a Will; (b) It is mandatory to get it attested no particular form of attestation is n (c) Each of the attesting witnesses m affix his mark to the Will or has see in the presence and by the directio from the testator a personal acknow the evidence adduced in support of t ficient to prove the sound and disposi as required by law, Courts would of propounder; and, (iii) if a 'Will' ircumstances, all such legitimate doub tory and sufficient evidence to disp n’ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradh llowing principles were inferred, whi two aspects: firstly, that the Will secondly, that it was the last W d with mathematical accuracy, but t t mind has to be applied. fulfil all the formalities requir ion Act, that is to say: ffix his mark to the Will or it shall his presence and by his direction a shall show that it was intended to g sted by two or more witnesses, thou is necessary; ses must have seen the testator sign s seen some other person sign the W ection of the testator, or has receiv nowledgment of such signatures; rt of the isposing ould be 'Will' is e doubts to dispel radhan which Will is st Will ut the quired hall be on and to give though sign or e Will, eceived PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O (d) E of th is no iv. F the and v. T sign pres vi. I exam vii. prov to be viii. Will susp case ix. T thos susp awa cons certa time free x. O pro ther of th coge 2004(O&M) -10- 004(O&M) (d) Each of the attesting witnesses of the testator, however, the presenc is not required; iv. For the purpose of proving the ex the attesting witnesses, who is aliv and capable of giving evidence, shal v. The attesting witness should sp signatures but also that each of the w presence of the testator; vi. If one attesting witness can pro examination of other attesting witne vii. Where one attesting witness ex prove its due execution, then the oth to be called to supplement his eviden viii. Whenever there exists any sus Will, it is the responsibility of the pr suspicions before it can be accepted cases, the initial onus on the propou ix. The test of judicial conscience h those cases where the execution suspicious circumstances. It requi awareness of the testator as to consequences, nature and effect of t certain and disposing state of mind time of execution; testator executed free Will; x. One who alleges fraud, fabricatio prove the same. However, even in t there are circumstances giving rise of the propounder to dispel such sus cogent and convincing explanation. ses shall sign the Will in the presen sence of all witnesses at the same ti he execution of the Will, at least one alive, subject to the process of cou shall be examined; d speak not only about the testato the witnesses had signed the will in t prove the execution of the Will, t itnesses can be dispensed with; s examined to prove the Will fails e other available attesting witness h vidence; suspicion as to the execution of t he propounder to remove all legitima pted as the testator's last Will. In su pounder becomes heavier. In su pounder becomes heavier. nce has been evolved for dealing w tion of the Will is surrounded equires to consider factors such s to the content as well as t t of the dispositions in the Will; soun ind and memory of the testator at t uted the Will while acting on his o cation, undue influence et cetera has in the absence of such allegations rise to doubt, then it becomes the du h suspicious circumstances by giving ion.” esence time one of f court, tator’s l in the ill, the fails to ess has f the itimate In such g with ed by uch as as the sound, r at the is own has to ions, if he duty iving a PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O 12. The was surrounded b the content as we the Will; (iii) memory of the te while acting on h 13. Ther should not raise interfere with the were living with a suspicion and dispel such suspi In the present ca with his wife an Singh, was livin daughter by the t does not seem p suspicious circum witness box. Th terms of Section friends of Kirp categorically adm of 6 kms from th therefore, the arg 2004(O&M) -11- 004(O&M) The factors required to consider wh nded by suspicious circumstances are; t as well as the consequences, (ii) natu (iii) sound, certain and disposing st f the testator at the time of execution g on his own free Will. There is no doubt to the propositio t raise any suspicion because idea be ith the normal line of succession. Bu with the testator and who served him n and therefore, it became the duty suspicious circumstance by giving co ent case, it is admitted position that th ife and unmarried daughter and the s living separately and thus, disinh y the testator on the ground that his so eem plausible. Interestingly, the pr circumstances raised by the responde x. The attesting witness DW2, T.S. ection 63 of the Act of 1925 as we Kirpal Singh and thus, they we lly admitted in his testimony that Karta rom the house of Kirpal Singh with his the argument that Kirpal Singh was lo where the case set up is that the W es are; (i) awareness of the testator as nature and effect of the dispositions ing state of mind of the testator; ( ion and (v) testator executed the W osition that deprivation of natural he dea behind execution of the Will is But deprivation of natural heirs, w d him till his last breath definitely rais duty of the propounder of the Will ving cogent and convincing explanatio that the testator-Kartar Singh was livi nd the propounder of the Will, Kirp disinheritance of wife and unmarri t his son, Kirpal Singh, was serving hi the propounder, who had to dispel t pondents-plaintiffs, did not step into t , T.S. Bhambra, who proved the Will as well as other attesting witness we y were interested witnesses. DW Kartar Singh was residing at a distan ith his wife and unmarried daughter an was looking after Kartar Singh falls fl the Will ator as to sitions in tor; (iv) the Will ral heirs ill is to eirs, who ly raises Will to lanation. as living l, Kirpal nmarried ing him, ispel the into the e Will in ess were DW2 distance hter and, falls flat. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O Furthermore, it h Builders in Engl livelihood. The bequeathed his e to him and that h 1st Appellate Cou and unmarried d death, thus, there one of the attesti 1925, he was an Consequently, it with Section 63 Will was a genui was examined. reports of the res 1 and responden disputed signatur Accordingly, it r the opinion of thi 14. The Ramabai’s case was proved on r parents after she testator of the W 2004(O&M) -12- 004(O&M) re, it had also come on record that Kar England till his death, thus, he was There is not a whisper in the W his estate to Kirpal Singh in lieu of that he disinherited all other legal heir te Court has rightly observed that the ried daughter and was taking their r , there was no reason for him to disi ttesting witnesses deposed in accorda as an interested witness, being a frie tly, it appears that he may have been on 63 of the Act of 1925 so as to cre genuine document. Neither the scri ined. The learned 1st Appellate Cou the respective handwriting experts pro ondents–plaintiffs, concluded that th ignatures was markedly different from ly, it relied upon the report submitted of this Court, was rightly done. The judgment relied upon by the le case (supra) is not applicable to the d on record that propounder of the er she became widow and looked after the Will herself gone to the office of Kartar Singh was working with De e was not dependent on any one for h the Will that the testator Kartar Sin ieu of services rendered by Kirpal Sin al heirs due to the said fact. The learn hat the testator was living with his w their responsibility as he earned till h to disinherit them altogether. Althou ccordance with Section 63 of the Act a friend of the propounder of the W e been tutored to give testimony in li to create an impression that the alleg he scribe nor the other marginal witne te Court, after carefully examining t rts produced by appellant–defendant N that the formation of the words in t nt from that of the specimen signatur mitted by PW-7, Arvind Sood, which, the learned counsel for the appellant to the present case, as in the said case f the alleged Will was living with h d after them for more than 20 years. ice of Sub-Registrar for the purposes ith Delta e for his ar Singh al Singh e learned his wife d till his lthough Act of the Will. y in line e alleged l witness ning the dant No. s in the gnatures. hich, in ellant in d case, it with her ars. The rposes of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-4207-2004( CR-5793-2004(O registration of th case, the Hon’ble have the greatest execution of the W over 20 years, ap case, the testator was residing and said testamentary 15. In v find any merit defendant No.1 decided against plaintiffs. Conseq learned 1st Appell as the civil revisi 16. Misc March 09, 2026 Pankaj* 2004(O&M) -13- 004(O&M) of the Will and she died 3 years and on’ble Supreme Court observed that i reatest amount of sympathy for their of the Will favour of widowed daughte appeared to be most natural and p estator had disinherited his wife and u ng and made a Will in favour of son entary inheritance does not appear nat In view of the aforesaid facts and c merit in the arguments raised by le 1 and the substantial questions o t the appellant-defendant No.1 Consequently, the judgment and decre Appellate Court are upheld and the ins revision petition are dismissed. Miscellaneous application(s) pendi (AM , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ars and 9 months thereafter. In the sa that it is most natural for the parents r their widowed daughter and therefo aughter, who looked after the testator f l and probable. However, in the prese and unmarried daughter with whom of son, who was living separately, thu ear natural. and circumstances, this Court does n by learned counsel for the appella of law as framed by this Court and in favour of the responde decree dated 20.08.2004 passed by t the instant regular second appeal as w ing, if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWA JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No the said arents to herefore, stator for e present hom he ly, thus, does not ppellant- t are ents- d by the as well sed of. EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.10 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh