RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-736-1990 (O&M) Reserved on :- 16.09.2025 Pronounced on:-24.09.2025 Kesar Kaur (Since Deceased) through her LRs … Appellant Versus Kartar Singh (Since Deceased) through his LRs and Others ... Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :- Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate and Mr. N.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate with Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for applicant-Jasvir Kaur. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . 1. The appellant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal (here- in-after referred to as “RSA”), challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira. In the course of the appeal, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings and decree of the trial Court, thereby setting aside the decision rendered by the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira. 2. Succinctly stated, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, claiming ownership of the suit land on the basis of a Will executed by his brother, Didar Singh @ Dara Singh, on 16.09.1985. The GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:2:- plaintiff contended that the appellant/defendant, Kesar Kaur, is not the legally wedded wife of Didar Singh and, therefore, has no right to inherit from him. He further asserted that the mutation of inheritance in her favor is illegal, null, and void. 2.1. The appellant-defendant contested the suit, alleging that the Will relied upon by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated. She claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of Didar Singh, asserting that the Karewa ceremony was performed between her and Didar Singh. 3. Upon a careful examination of the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed the following issues for determination, with a view to effectively adjudicating the rival contentions raised by the parties:- 1. Whether Didar Singh executed a Valid Will dated 16.09.1985 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether Kesar Kaur defendant was married to Didar Singh? OPD. 2-A Whether the defendant No.1 was never married with Puran Singh? OPD. 3. If issue No.2 is proved whether marriage of Kesar Kaur with Didar Singh was illegal and invalid during life time of her previous husband? 3-A Whether Kesar Kaur was previously married with one Puran Singh? If so its effect? OPP (Objected to and will be decided at the time of arguments) 4. Relief 4. Both parties were afforded ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defenses. Upon the conclusion of the evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, having carefully considered the pleadings, the material on record, and the submissions advanced, dismissed GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:3:- the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, holding that the Will in question was shrouded in mystery and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Smt. Kesar Kaur was held to be legally wedded wife of Didar Singh. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was subsequently allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereas Will in favour of plaintiff was upheld. 5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant preferred the present appeal, which was admitted for hearing. In consequence, notice was duly issued to the respondents, who appeared through learned counsel, and the records of the Courts below were requisitioned for careful and thorough examination and consideration by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the context of the pleadings, evidence on record, and findings of the Courts below. The record has been carefully examined to determine whether any legal infirmity, error, or perversity exists in the impugned judgment and decree warranting interference in this appeal. 7. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs and others V/s Chandrika and others, (2016)6 SCC 157, followed by the judgments in the case of Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR V/s Ram Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC 317 and Satender and others GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:4:- V/s Saroj and others, 2022(12) Scale 92. Relying upon the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no question of law is required to be framed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira, had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit after a careful appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the surrounding circumstances. However, the learned First Appellate Court reversed these well-reasoned findings without adequately addressing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Such reversal, he argued, is perverse and contrary to settled legal principles, warranting interference in this appeal. 8.1. It was further submitted that the plaintiff’s case is entirely premised on the alleged Will dated 16.09.1985, the execution of which has not been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellant consistently pleaded and adduced evidence establishing that she was married to Didar Singh through a valid Karewa ceremony, recognized under the law in Punjab. Once this was established, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to prove the invalidity of the marriage, which he failed to discharge. The mere allegation of the appellant’s prior marriage to Puran Singh cannot, by itself, render her marriage to Didar Singh void, particularly in the absence of evidence establishing the subsistence of the earlier marriage at the relevant time. 8.2. Learned counsel further argued that the First Appellate Court erred in treating the sanction of mutation in favor of the appellant as illegal. It is well-settled that mutation entries are made primarily for fiscal and administrative purposes and do not, in themselves, confer or extinguish title. GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:5:- The Trial Court had correctly applied this principle, whereas the Appellate Court misdirected itself. 8.3. It was further submitted that, although the scope of a Regular Second Appeal is limited, it extends to situations where the findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or raise substantial questions of law. In the present case, the First Appellate Court’s findings are vitiated by material illegality, misreading of evidence, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will having being considered by the Court. These factors, justify interference by this Court and a prayer that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court be set aside, and the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit, be restored. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Will dated 16.09.1985 was duly executed by Didar Singh @ Dara Singh in a sound and disposing state of mind and has been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The attesting witnesses were examined and fully corroborated the due execution and attestation of the Will. The learned First Appellate Court, after a careful appreciation of this evidence, rightly concluded that the Will is genuine and valid. 9.1. It was further contended that the Trial Court’s finding that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances is wholly unsustainable. The appellant’s claim of marriage with Didar Singh through a Karewa ceremony is false and unsubstantiated. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that the appellant was previously married to one Puran Singh, GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:6:- and the subsistence of that earlier marriage renders her alleged subsequent marriage with Didar Singh void and illegal. 9.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the mutation in favor of the appellant is illegal, null, and void, as she has no locus to claim succession to Didar Singh. The revenue authorities erred in entering her name in the inheritance proceedings. The First Appellate Court correctly declared such mutation ineffective against the rights of the respondent, who is the rightful owner by virtue of the Will. 9.3. It was further argued that it is a settled principle that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, does not interfere with concurrent or well-reasoned findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. In the present case, the First Appellate Court’s findings are based on a careful appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and cannot be characterized as perverse or illegal. The appellant has failed to point out any substantial question of law. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present appeal be dismissed with costs and that the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court, Ferozepur, decreeing the suit of the respondent, be upheld in its entirety. 10. The sole point of contention between the parties is whether the Will propounded by the respondent-plaintiff is a legally valid instrument. The learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira, concluded that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and the propounder of the Will has failed to dispel these doubts. The main facts considered by the learned Sub- Judge are summarized as follows:- ► The Will is an unregistered document. GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:7:- ► The beneficiary played a prominent role in the execution of the Will. ► The beneficiary is of advanced age and elder to testator. ► The respondent-plaintiff has denied the relationship of the appellant-defendant with Didar Singh, whereas such a relationship is mentioned in the Will. ► The Medical Officer attesting the Will is not a natural witness, and the rough draft of the Will was not produced. 11. The learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, held that the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira, had misinterpreted the evidence on record. The circumstances alleged to be suspicious were, in fact, not so, and the Will has been proved in accordance with law. The Appellate Court concluded that the document in question is the genuine Will of Didar Singh and that the disposition of property therein is natural. 11.1. It is not in dispute that a Will is not required to be compulsorily registered, and an unregistered Will is not at an inferior pedestal if it is duly executed by the testator. Regarding the beneficiary of the Will being elder in age, it is generally observed that Wills are executed in favor of beneficiaries younger than the testator or of the next generation. However, in the present case, the peculiar circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will show that the testator was admitted to the Civil Hospital at the relevant time and passed away four days after executing the Will. In such circumstances, with the expectation of imminent death, the testator naturally executed the Will, providing for his wife, the appellant-defendant, and leaving the remaining property to his elder brother, the respondent-plaintiff. The provisions of the Will, granting life interest to his wife in part of his estate and bequeathing GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:8:- the remainder to his elder brother, cannot be deemed unnatural under these circumstances. 11.2. Another factor rightly considered by the learned First Appellate Court is the allegation that the respondent-plaintiff, as beneficiary, took a prominent part in the execution of the Will. It is an admitted fact that the testator was hospitalized at the time. He was therefore unable to arrange for witnesses or a scribe himself. That the elder brother arranged for the scribe and witnesses and paid the scribe’s fee does not amount to the propounder taking a prominent part in the execution of the Will under the circumstances. There is no evidence that the Will was dictated by the propounder or that he influenced the subject matter of the Will. Merely arranging for witnesses and the scribe, when the testator was bedridden, was a natural course of action, as he being only male relative available at the bedside facilitated execution of the Will at the request of the testator. 12. The learned First Appellate Court rightly concluded that the Medical Officer was not required to testify regarding the specific disease with which the testator, Didar Singh, was admitted or to recall the serial number of the Bed-Head Ticket. The learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, had unduly emphasized these aspects while erroneously declaring the Doctor to be an interested witness. It is an admitted fact that Didar Singh was hospitalized at the relevant time, and the attending Medical Officer, Dr. A.S. Maan, testified that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, wrongly rejected this testimony, whereas the learned Additional District Judge correctly observed that the Medical Officer’s testimony had been improperly discarded. GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-736-1990 (O&M) -:9:- 13. On a careful appraisal of the record, the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, accurately evaluated the pleadings and evidence. The Court correctly held that the Will represents a natural disposition of property by Didar Singh and is not shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Zira, were rightly set aside by the learned First Appellate Court. 14. At this stage, it is on record that during the pendency of the proceedings, Smt. Kesar Kaur has executed three sale-deeds in respect of the property. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that these sale-deeds be declared null and void. However, I find that these sale-deeds are not the subject matter of the present litigation. Being executed during the pendency of the appeal, they would be governed by the principle of lis- pendens and are therefore subject to the outcome of the suit. In view of the foregoing discussion, having carefully considered the pleadings, evidence on record, and the submissions advanced by the parties, and finding no substantial merit or ground for interference, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 15. Since the main matter has been adjudicated and the appeal has been disposed of, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or connected with the present proceedings are also disposed of accordingly. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 24.09.2025 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2025.09.24 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document