RSA-1160-2014(O [240] [1] Som Nath B Smt. Raj K [2] Som Nath B Smt. Raj K Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] [2] their origin and respond [3] one Tirthi B Bai propou whereby sh Sain and S daughters, prove the (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA RSA-1160 Date of De Nath Bhatia Versus Raj Kumari Bhatia and others RSA-3547 Nath Bhatia Versus Raj Kumari Bhatia and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate fo Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advo Advocate Mr. Ram Lal Yadav Mr. Kartikeya Puri, Advocate **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1 is in appeal. For the convenience, the part original position(s) as in the Civil Sui espondents as plaintiffs. The dispute in the present lis rthi Bai. Defendant No.1 in order propounded a registered Will (Exh eby she bequeathed her share in favo and Som Nath Bhatia to the exclusio hters, namely Ram Piary and Santos e the said Will, examined Harish Kum T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1160-2014(O&M) of Decision :01.04.2026 …Appellant ….Respondents 3547-2014(O&M) …Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN cate for the appellant(s). (Through V.C Advocate Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Yadav, Advocate and ocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. parties hereinafter are referred to b vil Suit, i.e. appellant as defendant No lis relates to the estate left behind order to claim the estate left by Tirt (Exhibit DW2/A) dated 13.01.199 in favour of two sons, namely Mang xclusion of Jagan Nath @ Jaganlal an Santosh. Defendant No.1, in order h Kumar, one of the attesting witness 1 h V.C.) ngra, d to by nt No.1 hind by Tirthi 1.1997, Mangal and order to itnesses, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1160-2014(O as DW3. [4] various d evidence ad Court, whil under:- [5] recorded by dispute wo signed the from the te Section 68 (O&M) Both the Courts below have us discrepancies in the document nce adduced by the plaintiffs to prove while affirming the findings recorde “44. In present case if appella three witnesses namely Bheem Singh, Advocates, If it is believe Bheem Sain, then there is no evi testator in presence of other wi stated that no person other than So requirement of Section 68 of I 45. It is claimed that registr duly executed. It is also claime registered and has been duly opposite side i.e. challenger. But correct because basic rule is propounder. Whether it is re secondary. Due and valid execu and there cannot be substitute t case (supra) relied upon by plai that Will is registered will not suspicion regarding it.” Mr. Chadha, counsel for the ap ded by the Courts below. He submits te would reveal that the Scribe, Bh d the document as an attesting witnes the testimony of DW3-Harish Kumar on 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, have disbelieved the Will referring as well as contradictions in th prove Ex.DW2/A. Learned Appella recorded by the Trial Court, observed a pellant's claim is accepted then there a em Sain, Harish Kumar and Bharat P lieved that she had signed in presence o evidence to prove that it was signed r witnesses. This witnesses DW3 clear than those four were present at that tim 8 of Indian Evidence Act is not fulfilled gistration itself speaks that it has be imed that once it is proved that Will duly executed, then onus shifts upo . But this argument cannot be taken to le is that Will has to be proved s result of fraud or forgery becom xecution has to be proved by propound ute to this rule. In Rani Purnima Deb plaintiffs, it has been held that mere fa not by itself be sufficient to dispel a r the appellant, has assailed the finding mits that a bare perusal of the Will Bharat Pal Singh, Advocate, als witness and his presence stands prove Kumar. It is contended that in terms o examination of only one attestin 2 rring to in the ppellate erved as re are at Pal nce of ned by clearly t time. illed. s been Will is s upon n to be ed by comes under Debi's re fact pel all findings Will in , also proved terms of attesting RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1160-2014(O witness is s Harish Kum Section 63 Courts belo Pal Singh, Will makes well. He fu Thus the o cogent evid to dislodg suit filed by [6] No.1 & 2, s and the or testimony a Som Nath, person was [7] through rec [8] circumstanc Supreme C Thimmaja [9] Kavita Kan (O&M) is sufficient to prove due execution sh Kumar-DW3, it is evident that th on 63(c) of the Indian Succession A ts below have completely misread the ingh, Advocate signed merely as a Sc makes it clear that Bharat Pal Singh He further submits that the Will in the onus was upon the plaintiffs t nt evidence. There being no evidence slodge the Will, Courts erred in disca iled by the plaintiffs. Per contra, Mr. Sukhandeep , submits that there is material con the oral testimony of DW3-Harish ony admitted that at the time of exec Nath, Mangal Sain, Tirthi Bai and he was present at the spot. I have heard counsel for the records of the case. The law with respect to mstances surrounding the same has eme Court in the case of ‘H. Ven majamma and others’, 1959 AIR (S The same has been followed an Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta ecution of Will. From the testimony o hat the Will stood proved in terms o sion Act, 1925. He submits that th ad the document by holding that Bhar s a Scribe, whereas bare perusal of th Singh signed as an attesting witness a ill in dispute is a registered documen ntiffs to dislodge the same by leadin idence led by the plaintiffs and rebutt discarding the Will and decreeing th ndeep Singh, counsel for responde contradiction between the docume arish Kumar. Harish Kumar in h of execution of Will by Tirthi Bai, on he himself were present and no oth or the parties and have carefully gon to legality of Will and suspiciou has been elaborately laid down b Venkatachala Iyengar versus B.N IR (Supreme Court) 443. wed and reiterated by Supreme Court hta and others, 2020 AIR Suprem 3 mony of erms of that the t Bharat al of the tness as cument. leading rebuttal eing the pondent cument r in his only no other gone spicious own by B.N. Court in preme RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1160-2014(O Court 2614 Shivakuma 277, it was (O&M) 2614. Reiterating the parameters umar and others vs. Sharanabasp it was observed as under:- “xxxx xxxx 24.8. We need not multiply decisions cited at the Bar, w aforesaid principles while app facts and circumstances. Suffi recent decision in Civil Appea Ors. Vs. Sharanabasppa & ot Court, after traversing throu summarized the principles go concerning proof of a Will as f 1. Ordinarily, a will has to be the test to be applied being th the prudent mind. Alike the p other documents, in the ca mathematical accuracy is not t 2. Since as per Section 63 required to be attested, it can least one attesting witness ha proving its execution, if there capable of giving evidence. 3. The unique feature of a will the testator and, therefore, th for deposing about the circum executed. This introduces a decision of the question propounded is the last will o naturally, lies on the propoun have been primarily discharg which go into the making of a eters laid down by Supreme Court basppa and others, (2021) 11 SC xxx xxxx iply the references to all and oth r, which essentially proceed on th applying the same in the given set Suffice would be to point out that in peal No.6076 of 2009: Shivakumar & others, decided on 24.04.2020, th through the relevant decisions, ha s governing the adjudicatory proce l as follows:- o be proved like any other documen ng the usual test of the satisfaction the principles governing the proof case of will too, the proof wi not to be insisted upon. 63 of the Succession Act, a will t cannot be used as evidence until s has been called for the purpose here be an attesting witness alive an will is that it speaks from the death e, the maker thereof is not availab ircumstances in which the same wa s an element of solemnity in th on as to whether the docume ill of the testator. The initial onu pounder but the same can be taken arged on proof of the essential fac of a will. 4 ourt in SCC other on the set of at in a mar & 0, this s, has rocess ment; tion of oof of f with will is ntil at ose of and ath of ilable e was in the ument onus, ken to l facts RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1160-2014(O (O&M) 4. The case in which the exec suspicious circumstances sta presence of suspicious circum on the propounder and, t circumstances attendant upon give rise to suspicion, the legitimate suspicions before t the last will of the testator. 5. If a person challenging the fraud, undue influence, coer execution of the will, such ple even in the absence of such surrounding the execution of t or as to whether the will ha testator and/or as to whether t free will. In such eventuality, onus of the propounder to rem matter. 6. A circumstance is “suspici “not normally expected in a n of a normal person”. As pu features must be “real, germa “fantasy of the doubting mind” 7. As to whether any particu qualify as “suspicious” wo circumstances of each case. A feeble or uncertain mind of the property; an unjust exclusion the dependents; an active or l by the beneficiary thereund circumstances which may circumstances above-noted a means exhaustive because the set of circumstances which ma execution of the will is surrounded b stands on a different footing. Th rcumstances makes the onus heavi d, therefore, in cases where th upon the execution of the docume the propounder must remove a re the document can be accepted a the will alleges fabrication or alleg coercion et cetera in regard to th pleas have to be proved by him, b such pleas, the very circumstanc of the will may give rise to the dou ll had indeed been executed by th her the testator was acting of his ow ality, it is again a part of the initi remove all reasonable doubts in th spicious” when it is not normal or a normal situation or is not expecte s put by this Court, the suspiciou rmane and valid” and not merely th ind”. rticular feature or a set of featur would depend on the facts an se. A shaky or doubtful signature; f the testator; an unfair disposition ion of the legal heirs and particular or leading part in making of the w eunder et cetera are some of th ay give rise to suspicion. Th ed are only illustrative and by n e there could be any circumstance o h may give rise to legitimate suspicio 5 ded by . The eavier e the ument ve all ted as lleges to the m, but tances doubt by the is own initial in the l or is pected icious ely the atures s and ure; a tion of ularly e will of the . The by no nce or picion RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1160-2014(O [10] stated lega dismissed. [11] document. Harsh Kum been menti to be a mentioned [12] (O&M) about the execution of the wi circumstances qualifying a legitimately explained by th suspicion or suspicions cann sound and disposing state o signature coupled with the pro 8. The test of satisfaction of th operation when a document testator is surrounded by su applying such test, the court w questions as to whether the te being aware of its contents an and effect of the dispositions in 9. In the ultimate analysis, w shrouded in suspicion, it is a conscience of the court and th to offer cogent and convincin circumstances surrounding the xxxx xxxx Perusing the facts of the prese d legal proposition, this Court finds issed. A bare perusal of the Will wou ment. In the typed document, two w h Kumar, find mention. Name of mentioned as an attesting witness, bu a Scribe. A fourth witness, nam ioned in handwriting. Even if the plea raised by e will. On the other hand, any of th as being suspicious could b y the propounder. However, suc annot be removed by mere proof te of mind of the testator and h proof of attestation. of the judicial conscience comes in ent propounded as the will of th y suspicious circumstance(s). Whi urt would address itself to the solem he testator had signed the will whi ts and after understanding the natu ns in the will? is, where the execution of a will is a matter essentially of the judici d the party which sets up the will ha incing explanation of the suspiciou g the will. xxx xxxx” e present case from the prism of afor finds that the appeal deserves to b ill would reveal that the same is a type two witnesses, namely Bhim Sain an e of Bharat Pal Singh though has als but Harish Kumar- DW3 refers hi , namely Radhey Shyam, has bee ed by Mr. Chadha, counsel for th 6 of the ld be such oof of d his es into of the While olemn while nature ll is dicial ill has icious f afore- s to be typed and also fers him as been for the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1160-2014(O appellant, attesting w an attesting presence/ab statement m him, the tes on the spot puts the Wi rightly con DW2/A) is the defenda [13] the same ar [14] disposed of [15] 01.04.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) llant, with respect to Bharat Pal Singh ting witness is believed to be true, the testing witness still remains unexplain absence of Radhey Shyam furthe ment made by DW3-Harsh Kumar. the testator and the two beneficiarie e spot. This casts a cloud not only ov the Will in dock. In view thereof, this ly concluded that the Will propoun /A) is a document which is surrounde efendants miserably failed to dispel tho In view of the above, finding are ordered to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. Photocopy of this order be plac .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Singh having signed the document as ue, the mentioning of Radhey Shyam a plained. The mystery with respect further gets complexed in view of th . As per his testimony, apart fro iaries there was no fifth person prese nly over the testimony of DW3 but als f, this Court finds that the Courts belo opounded by the defendants (Exhib ounded by suspicious circumstance an pel those circumstances. inding no merits in the present appeal neous application(s), if any, stand be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 7 as an am as spect to of the art from present but also ts below xhibit nce and appeals, stands d case. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document