IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 106 RSA-3428-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:26.02.2026 Jaswinder Kaur …..Appellant Vs. Balrajwinder Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-12228-C-2023: This is an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act read with Secon 151 CPC to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of appellant Jaswinder Kaur, delay of 82 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plainff against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby her suit claiming inheritance rights in the estate of late Swinder Kaur was dismissed. 2. The dispute pertains to the estate of Swinder Kaur, who died leaving behind three sons, namely Balrajwinder Singh, Gurrajwinder Singh and Sukhrajwinder Singh, and three daughters, namely Rajwinder Kaur, Palwinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur. Sukhrajwinder Singh having pre- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3428-2023 (O&M) -2- deceased, his estate devolved upon his widow Gurmit Kaur and children Jander, Sander and Manjinder Singh. 3. The plainff–appellant Jaswinder Kaur instuted the suit asserng that Swinder Kaur died intestate and, therefore, she was entled to succeed as a Class-I heir to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit property. 4. The defendants resisted the claim on the basis of a Will dated 05.07.2004 allegedly executed by Swinder Kaur in favour of her three sons, thereby excluding the daughters from inheritance. 5. Upon framing of issues and appreciaon of evidence, the trial Court held that the Will propounded by the defendants stood duly proved in accordance with law and that the plainff had failed to establish any circumstance rendering the Will forged or suspicious. The suit was consequently dismissed on 06.02.2018. The First Appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the enre evidence, affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal on 05.04.2023. 6. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Will was not proved in accordance with law as only one a?esng witness, namely Kulbir Kaur, was examined while the other a?esng witness Mehnga Singh was not produced. It is further contended that the tesmony of Kulbir Kaur was unreliable since she referred to the Will as being executed on stamp paper, whereas the document was not so executed. Learned counsel has also argued that exclusion of the daughters without sufficient jusficaon constutes a suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. 7. The contenons do not merit acceptance. 8. The First Appellate Court has exhausvely analysed the evidence and correctly applied the statutory requirements contained in Secon 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Secon 68 of the Indian NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3428-2023 (O&M) -3- Evidence Act, 1872 which mandate examinaon of at least one a?esng witness to prove execuon of a Will. In the present case, Kulbir Kaur, an a?esng witness and former Sarpanch of the village, categorically deposed regarding the manner of execuon of the Will, idenficaon of the signatures of the testatrix, and a?estaon in the presence of the other witness. Her tesmony remained unshaken in cross-examinaon and sufficiently proved due execuon and a?estaon. 9. The non-examinaon of the second a?esng witness, by itself, does not viate proof of the Will once the statutory requirement of examining one a?esng witness stands sasfied. The minor discrepancy regarding reference to stamp paper does not strike at the core of execuon, parcularly when the witness consistently supported the execuon and a?estaon of the Will. 10. The plea of suspicious circumstances is equally devoid of substance. The Will itself records that the daughters were married, se?led in their matrimonial homes, and that the testatrix had already incurred expenses on their marriages. The evidence further indicates that the sons were residing in the village and were looking aCer the testatrix. The mere exclusion of daughters from testamentary succession cannot, by itself, be treated as a suspicious circumstance, as the very object of execung a Will is to deviate from the normal line of succession. 11. Significantly, the plainff admi?ed that the testatrix was in a sound and disposing state of mind. No evidence was led to establish coercion, undue influence, or lack of testamentary capacity. Furthermore, despite alleging forgery, the plainff failed to produce any expert or documentary evidence to substanate the plea, nor was any enmity with the a?esng witnesses suggested that could indicate fabricaon. 12. Thus, the propounders successfully discharged the inial burden of proving the Will, whereaCer the onus shiCed upon the plainff NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3428-2023 (O&M) -4- to establish suspicious circumstances or forgery, which she failed to do. 13. The findings recorded by both Courts below are based on proper appreciaon of oral and documentary evidence and reflect a correct applicaon of se?led principles governing proof of testamentary documents. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or legal infirmity has been demonstrated. 14. It is well se?led that concurrent findings relang to due execuon of a Will are essenally findings of fact and cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or giving rise to a substanal queson of law. The present appeal merely seeks re- appreciaon of evidence, which falls outside the scope of jurisdicon under Secon 100 CPC. 15. Consequently, no substanal queson of law arises for consideraon. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. All pending miscellaneous applicaons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 26, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document