RSA No.2351 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 104 Bhajno alias Bhajo Harbans Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others CORAM: Present: AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. judgment and decree dated Court whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1987 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant reversed and while allowing the appeal of the respondents suit was dismissed. 2. terms of their status before the learned trial Court. 3. declaration regarding suit property as detailed in the head note of the plaint, situated in village that the plaintiff is in possession of 1/5 351 of 1992 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. Reserved on Pronounced on:16.09.2025 o alias Bhajo Vs Harbans Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for LRs of respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. RiteshTomar, Advocate for respondent No.2(i). -.- AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 passed by the learned 1 whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1987 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant reversed and while allowing the appeal of the respondents suit was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court. In brief, the facts are that declaration regarding suit property as detailed in the head note of the plaint, situated in village Bathe Bhaini, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar to the effect that the plaintiff is in possession of 1/5th IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2351 of 1992 (O&M) Reserved on:10.09.2025 Pronounced on:16.09.2025 ...Appellant Harbans Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others ...Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Baljinder Singh, Advocate for LRs of respondents No.1 and 2. plaintiff is the appellant before this Court challenging the passed by the learned 1st Appellate whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1987 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been reversed and while allowing the appeal of the respondents-defendants, the ience, parties are being referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court. are that plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration regarding suit property as detailed in the head note of the plaint, Bathe Bhaini, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar to the effect share of land qua the share of plaintiff is the appellant before this Court challenging the Appellate whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1987 passed by the plaintiff has been defendants, the ience, parties are being referred to in plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration regarding suit property as detailed in the head note of the plaint, Bathe Bhaini, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar to the effect share of land qua the share of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 Tarlochan Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1981 and defendants No.1 and 2 are ow defendants No.3 to 5 Singh, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction with the direction that defendants No.1 and 4 should not further alienate the suit land in favour of any person. of Sadhu Singh had pre pedigree table is drawn as under to better understand the relationship between the parties. Bhajno Daughter (Plaintiff) 4. Tarlochan Singh bequeathing his estate in favour of his five daughters as mentioned above in the ratio of 1/5 defendants No.3 to 5 and 1/5 The said Will was registered in the office of Sub defendants No.1 and 4 propounded another Will dated 24.01.1984 allegedly executed by Tarlochan Singh whereby they were declared sole owners of the suit property and on the basis of same, plaintiff from Khasra Nos.2//25, 3//22/1, 5//11/2/1 and 38//25 and also got 351 of 1992 (O&M) -2- Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1981 and defendants No.1 and 2 are ow defendants No.3 to 5 are owners of 3/5th Singh, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction with the direction that defendants No.1 and 4 should not enate the suit land in favour of any person. of Sadhu Singh had pre-deceased his wife and he had f pedigree table is drawn as under to better understand the relationship between the parties. Tarlochan Singh Wife (pre-deceased) Mahindro Jito Daughter Daugther (D. No.2) (D. No.3) Harbans Singh Son (D.No.1) The plaintiff propounded a Will dated Tarlochan Singh bequeathing his estate in favour of his five daughters as mentioned above in the ratio of 1/5th share each in favour of plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 and 1/5th share in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Will was registered in the office of Sub defendants No.1 and 4 propounded another Will dated 24.01.1984 allegedly executed by Tarlochan Singh whereby they were declared sole owners of the suit property and on the basis of same, they made attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from Khasra Nos.2//25, 3//22/1, 5//11/2/1 and 38//25 and also got Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1981 and defendants No.1 and 2 are owners of 1/5th share and share in the estate of Tarlochan Singh, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction with the direction that defendants No.1 and 4 should not dispossess the plaintiff and enate the suit land in favour of any person. Tarlochan Singh son deceased his wife and he had five daughters. A pedigree table is drawn as under to better understand the relationship Tarlochan Singh deceased) Jogindero Chhindo Daugther Daughter Daughter (D. No.3) (D. No.4) (D. No.5) The plaintiff propounded a Will dated 31.03.1981 executed by Tarlochan Singh bequeathing his estate in favour of his five daughters as share each in favour of plaintiff and share in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Will was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Patti. However, defendants No.1 and 4 propounded another Will dated 24.01.1984 allegedly executed by Tarlochan Singh whereby they were declared sole owners of the they made attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from Khasra Nos.2//25, 3//22/1, 5//11/2/1 and 38//25 and also got Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh on the basis of registered Will share and share in the estate of Tarlochan Singh, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction with the dispossess the plaintiff and Tarlochan Singh son daughters. A pedigree table is drawn as under to better understand the relationship 31.03.1981 executed by Tarlochan Singh bequeathing his estate in favour of his five daughters as share each in favour of plaintiff and share in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Registrar, Patti. However, defendants No.1 and 4 propounded another Will dated 24.01.1984 allegedly executed by Tarlochan Singh whereby they were declared sole owners of the they made attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from Khasra Nos.2//25, 3//22/1, 5//11/2/1 and 38//25 and also got PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 mutations of the land bearing Nos.1010 and 1516 sanctioned in their names excluding all other legal heirs and complet 31.03.1981. Hence, the civil suit. 5. written statement wherein preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts and plaintiff not coming with clean hands etc. were taken. On merits, it was took care of Tarlochan Singh throughout his life and thus, out of love and affection, he bequeathed the Will dated 24.01.1984 in their favour and cancelled his earlier Will dated 31.03.1981 on the b were sanctioned in their favour as well. They denied the possession of plaintiff over 1/5 defendant No.5 got executed a fabricated Will dated 24. sanctioned mu SDO (Civil), Patti exercising the power of Assistant Collector 1 SDO (C) after affording opportunity of leading evidence to all parties. 6. the pleas of defendants and reiterated the pleas taken in the plaint. 7. many as eight issues including the issue of relief. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary Court decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff to be owner in possession of 1/5th share of the estate of Tarlochan Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1981 in Village Saidpur and Village the head note of the plaint and defendants No.3 to 5 qua 1/5 defendants No.1 and 2 qua 1/5 351 of 1992 (O&M) -3- of the land bearing Nos.1010 and 1516 sanctioned in their names cluding all other legal heirs and complet 31.03.1981. Hence, the civil suit. Hence, the civil suit. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 4 by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts and plaintiff not coming with clean hands etc. were taken. On , it was stated that defendant No.1 and took care of Tarlochan Singh throughout his life and thus, out of love and affection, he bequeathed the Will dated 24.01.1984 in their favour and his earlier Will dated 31.03.1981 on the b were sanctioned in their favour as well. They denied the possession of plaintiff over 1/5th share of the land in dispute. It was also stated that defendant No.5 got executed a fabricated Will dated 24. sanctioned mutations on the basis of said Will but the same were rejected by SDO (Civil), Patti exercising the power of Assistant Collector 1 SDO (C) after affording opportunity of leading evidence to all parties. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wher the pleas of defendants and reiterated the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues including the issue of relief. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff to be owner in possession of share of the estate of Tarlochan Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1981 in Village Saidpur and Village the head note of the plaint and defendants No.3 to 5 qua 1/5 defendants No.1 and 2 qua 1/5th share, with consequential relief of of the land bearing Nos.1010 and 1516 sanctioned in their names cluding all other legal heirs and completely ignoring the Will date The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 4 by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts and plaintiff not coming with clean hands etc. were taken. On stated that defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.4 took care of Tarlochan Singh throughout his life and thus, out of love and affection, he bequeathed the Will dated 24.01.1984 in their favour and his earlier Will dated 31.03.1981 on the basis of which mutations were sanctioned in their favour as well. They denied the possession of share of the land in dispute. It was also stated that defendant No.5 got executed a fabricated Will dated 24.01.1984 and got tations on the basis of said Will but the same were rejected by SDO (Civil), Patti exercising the power of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, SDO (C) after affording opportunity of leading evidence to all parties. Replication was filed by the plaintiff whereby she controverted the pleas of defendants and reiterated the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues including the issue of relief. After appreciating the oral evidence led by both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff to be owner in possession of share of the estate of Tarlochan Singh on the basis of registered Will dated 31.03.1981 in Village Saidpur and Village Baithe Baini, as detailed in the head note of the plaint and defendants No.3 to 5 qua 1/5th share each and share, with consequential relief of of the land bearing Nos.1010 and 1516 sanctioned in their names d The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 4 by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts and plaintiff not coming with clean hands etc. were taken. On husband of defendant No.4 took care of Tarlochan Singh throughout his life and thus, out of love and affection, he bequeathed the Will dated 24.01.1984 in their favour and asis of which mutations were sanctioned in their favour as well. They denied the possession of share of the land in dispute. It was also stated that 1.1984 and got tations on the basis of said Will but the same were rejected by Grade, eby she controverted On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues including the issue of relief. After appreciating the oral evidence led by both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff to be owner in possession of share of the estate of Tarlochan Singh on the basis of registered Will Baini, as detailed in share each and share, with consequential relief of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 restraining the defendants No.1 to 4 from alienating the land in any manner. Defendants No.1 and 4 preferred an appeal before the learned 1 Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and the learned 1 while setting aside the judgme Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff knocked the door of this Court by way of instant regular second appeal. 8. 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances and therefore, was discarded to be not genuine by the learned trial Court. The said finding of the learned trial Court was based on correct appreciation of the evidence led by bot Court gravely erred in offered in the Will Ex.D2 as to what were the circumstances, which compelled Tarlochan Singh to exclude his other earlier Will dated 31.03.198 legal heirs. 24.01.1984 Ex.D2, was admitted by the defendants though the original Will dated 31.03.198 9. surrounded by suspicious circumstances of 1/5th share of the suit property by way of earlier Will dated 31.03.198 is evident from 31.03.1981 24.01.1984, 351 of 1992 (O&M) -4- restraining the defendants No.1 to 4 from alienating the land in any manner. Defendants No.1 and 4 preferred an appeal before the learned 1 Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and the learned 1st Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff knocked the door of this Court by way of instant regular second Learned counsel for the appellant submits 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances and therefore, was discarded to be not genuine by the learned trial Court. The said finding of the learned trial Court was based on correct appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties and thus, the learned 1 Court gravely erred in reversing the said finding. There was no explanation offered in the Will Ex.D2 as to what were the circumstances, which compelled Tarlochan Singh to exclude his other earlier Will dated 31.03.1981, he bequeathed his estate in legal heirs. The Will dated 31.03.1981 24.01.1984 Ex.D2, was admitted by the defendants though the original Will dated 31.03.1981 was not placed on record. It is further submitted that t surrounded by suspicious circumstances, as plaintiff was put in possession share of the suit property by way of earlier Will dated 31.03.198 is evident from Jamabandi for the year 1984 was cancelled while executing the subsequent Will dated 984, it is not comprehensible as to why Tarlochan Singh did not take restraining the defendants No.1 to 4 from alienating the land in any manner. Defendants No.1 and 4 preferred an appeal before the learned 1st Appellate Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 nt and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff knocked the door of this Court by way of instant regular second Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances and therefore, was discarded to be not genuine by the learned trial Court. The said finding of the learned trial Court was based on correct appreciation h the parties and thus, the learned 1st Appellate reversing the said finding. There was no explanation offered in the Will Ex.D2 as to what were the circumstances, which compelled Tarlochan Singh to exclude his other legal heirs when in his , he bequeathed his estate in favour of all his 1, prior in time to Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2, was admitted by the defendants though the original Will aced on record. It is further submitted that the Will dated 24.01.1984 is , as plaintiff was put in possession share of the suit property by way of earlier Will dated 31.03.1981, as Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 and even if the Will dated was cancelled while executing the subsequent Will dated it is not comprehensible as to why Tarlochan Singh did not take restraining the defendants No.1 to 4 from alienating the land in any manner. Appellate Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 nt and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff knocked the door of this Court by way of instant regular second ated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was held to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances and therefore, was discarded to be not genuine by the learned trial Court. The said finding of the learned trial Court was based on correct appreciation Appellate reversing the said finding. There was no explanation offered in the Will Ex.D2 as to what were the circumstances, which n in his all his , prior in time to Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2, was admitted by the defendants though the original Will he Will dated 24.01.1984 is , as plaintiff was put in possession , as 85 and even if the Will dated was cancelled while executing the subsequent Will dated it is not comprehensible as to why Tarlochan Singh did not take PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 any steps then to take back possession from the plainti submitted that even the Will dated 24.01.1984 was not proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1925). The other attesting witness Ajit Singh, Sarpanch of village Baithe Bhaini was not even examined by defendants for the reasons best known to them and testimony of other attesting witness DW and thus, the Will dated 24.01. discarded and in that case, the property is req shares in favour of legal heirs of Tarlochan Singh. registered, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and is not proved as per provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1925, it is liable to be declared null and void. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan and others Vs. Kamla Pradhan and another Civil Appeal No.3351 of 2014 decided on 21.09.20 Muruganatham 02.01.2025. is evident from the jamabandi for the year 2020 synopsis given by learned counsel for the appellant. 10. that the onus to prove fraud and misrepresentation is always on the person, who pleads to be proved by the plaintiff, which she failed to prove as no evidence was led to prove that the Will dated 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud. Admittedly, Tarlochan Singh was living with defe Singh son of Mahindero daughter of Tarlochan Singh. In other words, 351 of 1992 (O&M) -5- any steps then to take back possession from the plainti submitted that even the Will dated 24.01.1984 was not proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of . The other attesting witness Ajit Singh, Sarpanch of village Baithe s not even examined by defendants for the reasons best known to them and testimony of other attesting witness DW and thus, the Will dated 24.01.1984, though registered, is liable to be discarded and in that case, the property is req shares in favour of legal heirs of Tarlochan Singh. registered, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and is not proved as per provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1925, it is liable to be declared ll and void. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan and others Vs. Kamla Pradhan and another Civil Appeal No.3351 of 2014 decided on 21.09.20 Muruganatham & Ors. Passed in Civil Appeal No.7578 of 2023 decided on 02.01.2025. Lastly, it is also submitted that appellant is still in possession as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 2020 given by learned counsel for the appellant. In rebuttal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the onus to prove fraud and misrepresentation is always on the person, the same. The Will dated 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud was to be proved by the plaintiff, which she failed to prove as no evidence was led to prove that the Will dated 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud. Admittedly, Tarlochan Singh was living with defe Singh son of Mahindero daughter of Tarlochan Singh. In other words, any steps then to take back possession from the plaintiff. It is further submitted that even the Will dated 24.01.1984 was not proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of . The other attesting witness Ajit Singh, Sarpanch of village Baithe s not even examined by defendants for the reasons best known to them and testimony of other attesting witness DW-7 was not found credible 984, though registered, is liable to be discarded and in that case, the property is required to be divided in equal shares in favour of legal heirs of Tarlochan Singh. Once a Will, though registered, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and is not proved as per provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1925, it is liable to be declared ll and void. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan and others Vs. Kamla Pradhan and another passed in Civil Appeal No.3351 of 2014 decided on 21.09.2023 and Leela & Ors Vs. Passed in Civil Appeal No.7578 of 2023 decided on Lastly, it is also submitted that appellant is still in possession as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 2020-2021 attached with the given by learned counsel for the appellant. In rebuttal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the onus to prove fraud and misrepresentation is always on the person, the same. The Will dated 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud was to be proved by the plaintiff, which she failed to prove as no evidence was led to prove that the Will dated 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud. Admittedly, Tarlochan Singh was living with defendant No.1-Harbans Singh son of Mahindero daughter of Tarlochan Singh. In other words, It is further submitted that even the Will dated 24.01.1984 was not proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of . The other attesting witness Ajit Singh, Sarpanch of village Baithe s not even examined by defendants for the reasons best known to 7 was not found credible 984, though registered, is liable to be uired to be divided in equal Once a Will, though registered, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and is not proved as per provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1925, it is liable to be declared ll and void. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in passed in Vs. Passed in Civil Appeal No.7578 of 2023 decided on Lastly, it is also submitted that appellant is still in possession as 2021 attached with the In rebuttal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the onus to prove fraud and misrepresentation is always on the person, the same. The Will dated 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud was to be proved by the plaintiff, which she failed to prove as no evidence was led to prove that the Will dated 24.01.1984 was obtained by fraud. Harbans Singh son of Mahindero daughter of Tarlochan Singh. In other words, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 Harbans Singh was grandson of Tarlochan Singh. dated 24.01.1984 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the A and once the execution Will automatically becomes redundant. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar (dead) by LRs Vs. Vinod Kumar and others (2012) 4 SCC 38 contend that active participation of the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of natural heirs cannot lead to an inference that the Will was not genuine. examination of Ajit Singh, second witn no relevance, as Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 does not contain any such requirement and it is settled law that examination of one of the attesting witnesses is sufficient. In the present case, DW Will had duly proved its execution as valid. He further relie judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in and others Vs. German Singh (dead) through his LRs and others 2011 (5) RCR (Civil) 799 the later Will earlier Will was also a valid execution. 11. with paper book with their abl 12. is whether the second Will dated 24.01.1984 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925? Section 63 of the Act of 1925 is herein under: 351 of 1992 (O&M) -6- Harbans Singh was grandson of Tarlochan Singh. dated 24.01.1984 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the A and once the execution of the second Will is held as duly proved, earlier Will automatically becomes redundant. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar (dead) by LRs Vs. Vinod Kumar and others (2012) 4 SCC 38 contend that active participation of the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of natural heirs cannot lead to an inference that the Will was not genuine. examination of Ajit Singh, second witness of the Will dated 24.01.1984 has no relevance, as Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 does not contain any such requirement and it is settled law that examination of one of the attesting witnesses is sufficient. In the present case, DW Will had duly proved its execution as valid. He further relie judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in and others Vs. German Singh (dead) through his LRs and others 2011 (5) RCR (Civil) 799 to contend that if the Will later in time is proved, then it is the later Will, which would prevail over the earlier Will, no earlier Will was also a valid execution. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused with paper book with their able assistance as well as the case laws cited. The only question which is to be answered in the instant appeal is whether the second Will dated 24.01.1984 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925? Section 63 of the Act of 1925 is herein under:- Harbans Singh was grandson of Tarlochan Singh. Furthermore, the Will dated 24.01.1984 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 of the second Will is held as duly proved, earlier Will automatically becomes redundant. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs Vs. Vinod Kumar and others (2012) 4 SCC 387 to contend that active participation of the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of natural heirs cannot lead to an inference that the Will was not genuine. It is also submitted that non ess of the Will dated 24.01.1984 has no relevance, as Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 does not contain any such requirement and it is settled law that examination of one of the attesting witnesses is sufficient. In the present case, DW-7, attesting witness of the Will had duly proved its execution as valid. He further relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Harbans Singh and others Vs. German Singh (dead) through his LRs and others 2011 (5) f the Will later in time is proved, then it is evail over the earlier Will, no matter the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused e assistance as well as the case laws cited. The only question which is to be answered in the instant appeal is whether the second Will dated 24.01.1984 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925? Section 63 of the Act of 1925 is reproduced Furthermore, the Will ct of 1925 of the second Will is held as duly proved, earlier Will automatically becomes redundant. In support of his contention, he Mahesh to contend that active participation of the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of natural heirs cannot lead to an It is also submitted that non- ess of the Will dated 24.01.1984 has no relevance, as Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 does not contain any such requirement and it is settled law that examination of one of the attesting ss of the upon the Harbans Singh and others Vs. German Singh (dead) through his LRs and others 2011 (5) f the Will later in time is proved, then it is matter the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused The only question which is to be answered in the instant appeal is whether the second Will dated 24.01.1984 was duly proved in terms of reproduced PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 13. Will must be direction. The Will must be attested by at least two witnesses and each witness must have either seen the testator sign or aff or has seen some other person sign the Wi direction of the testator. However, it is not necessary for both witnesses to be present at the same time. 1872 makes it clear that at least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove the execution of the Will. 351 of 1992 (O&M) -7- “63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. A bare perusal of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 reveals that the Will must be signed by the testator or by someone in his presence and by his direction. The Will must be attested by at least two witnesses and each witness must have either seen the testator sign or aff een some other person sign the Wi direction of the testator. However, it is not necessary for both witnesses to be present at the same time. Further, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that at least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove the execution of the Will. Execution of unprivileged Wills. Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual or an airman so employed or engaged or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:-- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or her person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” A bare perusal of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 reveals that the signed by the testator or by someone in his presence and by his direction. The Will must be attested by at least two witnesses and each witness must have either seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will een some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator. However, it is not necessary for both witnesses to Further, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that at least one attesting witness has to be examined to Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual or an airman so employed or engaged or a mariner at (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or her person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same ” A bare perusal of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 reveals that the signed by the testator or by someone in his presence and by his direction. The Will must be attested by at least two witnesses and each ix his mark to the Will ll, in the presence and by the direction of the testator. However, it is not necessary for both witnesses to Further, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes it clear that at least one attesting witness has to be examined to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 14. Pradhan’s case parties, follo 351 of 1992 (O&M) -8- In the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradhan’s case (supra), which is referred to by learned counsel for both parties, following principles were inferred, which are required to be proved: “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 wi but 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 (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 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 by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures; (d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of 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 speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; In the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena (supra), which is referred to by learned counsel for both wing principles were inferred, which are required to be proved: “i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required 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 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 e Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures; (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 v. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; Meena (supra), which is referred to by learned counsel for both wing principles were inferred, which are required to be proved:- “i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last th mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required (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 (b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, (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 e Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal (d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the all witnesses 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 v. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses had PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 15. the Will was surrounded the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, effect of the disp of mind of the testator and (v) testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will; 351 of 1992 (O&M) -9- vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be 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 of 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 been 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 dispositions 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, has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if 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 co The factors required to consider the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances are; (i) the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, effect of the dispositions in the Will; (iii) sound, certain of the testator; (iv) memory of the testator at the time of execut testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will; vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, her attesting witnesses can be dispensed 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; any suspicion as to the execution of 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 e test of judicial conscience has been 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 uences, nature and effect of the dispositions 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 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.” to consider where the case set up is that by suspicious circumstances are; (i) awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, (ii) nature and sound, certain and disposing state memory of the testator at the time of execution testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will; vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, her attesting witnesses can be dispensed vii. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available any suspicion as to the execution of 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 e test of judicial conscience has been 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 uences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious ” where the case set up is that awareness of nature and and disposing state ion PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 16. testator Tarlochan Singh, who was aged 72 years at the time of execution of the Will stated that he executed the Will in good health, full consciousness and as per his desire. It is further sta and his grandson Harbans Singh rendered services to him and he was pleased with them and being happy from their services, he executed the present Will, which is his second Will and also the last Will. Furthermore, there is also a recital to the effect that 31.03.1981, which I had executed in favour of my daughters Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo, Jogindero and Bhajo with my own free will and desire and that Will would be inoperative. have executed this new Will today in my complete senses.’ bequeathing 2/3 in the name of Harbans Singh, it was categorically mentioned that no other person including my other daughters namely Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo and Bhajo shall be ent 17. Singh was not in his senses at the time of execution of Will dated 24.01.1984, purported that a fraud was played upon the testator, as he was fully conscious of the fact that he had exec that the said Will would be rendered inoperati same. 18. witness Hardip Singh, Lambardar was examined as DW categorically stated that the testator Tarlochan Singh was in sound disposing 351 of 1992 (O&M) -10- A perusal of the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 reveals that the testator Tarlochan Singh, who was aged 72 years at the time of execution of the Will stated that he executed the Will in good health, full consciousness and as per his desire. It is further stated therein that his daughter Jogindero and his grandson Harbans Singh rendered services to him and he was pleased with them and being happy from their services, he executed the present Will, which is his second Will and also the last Will. Furthermore, here is also a recital to the effect that ‘I hereby cancel the Will dated 31.03.1981, which I had executed in favour of my daughters Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo, Jogindero and Bhajo with my own free will and desire and that Will would be inoperative. By cancelling the Will dated 31.03.1981, I have executed this new Will today in my complete senses.’ bequeathing 2/3rd share in favour of his daughter Jogindero and 1/3 in the name of Harbans Singh, it was categorically mentioned that no other n including my other daughters namely Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo and Bhajo shall be entitled to inherit his property. The appellant has failed to prove that the testator Tarlochan Singh was not in his senses at the time of execution of Will dated , Ex.D2 and from a bare perusal of aforesaid Will, it cannot be purported that a fraud was played upon the testator, as he was fully conscious of the fact that he had executed a Will earlier on 31.03.19 that the said Will would be rendered inoperati To prove the valid execution of the Will, one of the attesting witness Hardip Singh, Lambardar was examined as DW categorically stated that the testator Tarlochan Singh was in sound disposing A perusal of the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 reveals that the testator Tarlochan Singh, who was aged 72 years at the time of execution of the Will stated that he executed the Will in good health, full consciousness ted therein that his daughter Jogindero and his grandson Harbans Singh rendered services to him and he was pleased with them and being happy from their services, he executed the present Will, which is his second Will and also the last Will. Furthermore, ‘I hereby cancel the Will dated 31.03.1981, which I had executed in favour of my daughters Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo, Jogindero and Bhajo with my own free will and desire and elling the Will dated 31.03.1981, I have executed this new Will today in my complete senses.’ While share in favour of his daughter Jogindero and 1/3rd share in the name of Harbans Singh, it was categorically mentioned that no other n including my other daughters namely Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo and itled to inherit his property. The appellant has failed to prove that the testator Tarlochan Singh was not in his senses at the time of execution of Will dated Ex.D2 and from a bare perusal of aforesaid Will, it cannot be purported that a fraud was played upon the testator, as he was fully uted a Will earlier on 31.03.1981 and that the said Will would be rendered inoperative and thus, cancelled the To prove the valid execution of the Will, one of the attesting witness Hardip Singh, Lambardar was examined as DW-7, who categorically stated that the testator Tarlochan Singh was in sound disposing A perusal of the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 reveals that the testator Tarlochan Singh, who was aged 72 years at the time of execution of the Will stated that he executed the Will in good health, full consciousness ted therein that his daughter Jogindero and his grandson Harbans Singh rendered services to him and he was pleased with them and being happy from their services, he executed the present Will, which is his second Will and also the last Will. Furthermore, ‘I hereby cancel the Will dated 31.03.1981, which I had executed in favour of my daughters Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo, Jogindero and Bhajo with my own free will and desire and elling the Will dated 31.03.1981, I While share in the name of Harbans Singh, it was categorically mentioned that no other n including my other daughters namely Mohindero, Jitto, Chhindo and The appellant has failed to prove that the testator Tarlochan Singh was not in his senses at the time of execution of Will dated Ex.D2 and from a bare perusal of aforesaid Will, it cannot be purported that a fraud was played upon the testator, as he was fully 81 and ve and thus, cancelled the To prove the valid execution of the Will, one of the attesting 7, who categorically stated that the testator Tarlochan Singh was in sound disposing PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 mind and he had produ of execution of Will Ex.D2. He further stated that contents of the Will Ex.D2 were read over to the testator, who correct, had thumb marked on the Will in his presence and he marked the same in the presence of testator Tarlochan Singh. deposed that before the Tehsildar, who also read over the contents of the Will to the testator Tarlochan Singh and after admitting marked the same presence of Sub Registrar. who stated that the Will Ex.D2 was scribed by him at the instance of Tarlochan Singh. The contents of the W admitting the same to be correct Ajit Singh and Hardip Singh were attesting witnesses. Thus, the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence 19. discard the Will. appellant in the case of facts of the present case. In the sa stated that her husband was not execution of the Will and she had not actively participated in execution of the Will but the stamp papers were purchased in her name. Secondly, stamp papers were purchased at Tenkashi whereas the Will was executed at Madurai. She herself stated that her brother DW1, who was also attesting witness of the Will, had brought the same to her. 351 of 1992 (O&M) -11- mind and he had produced a previous Will, which was cancelled on the day of execution of Will Ex.D2. He further stated that contents of the Will Ex.D2 were read over to the testator, who correct, had thumb marked on the Will in his presence and he marked the same in the presence of testator Tarlochan Singh. deposed that Ajit Singh was another witness of the Will. They appeared before the Tehsildar, who also read over the contents of the Will to the testator Tarlochan Singh and after admitting the same in his presence. He and Ajit a of Sub Registrar. The scribe of the Will was examined as DW who stated that the Will Ex.D2 was scribed by him at the instance of Tarlochan Singh. The contents of the Will were read over to him and the same to be correct, he thumb marked on it. Ajit Singh and Hardip Singh were attesting witnesses. Thus, the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence The exclusion of some of legal heirs cannot be a ground to discard the Will. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Leela and others facts of the present case. In the said case, propounder of the Will herself stated that her husband was not maintaining execution of the Will and she had not actively participated in execution of the Will but the stamp papers were purchased in her name. Secondly, stamp papers were purchased at Tenkashi whereas the Will was executed at Madurai. She herself stated that her brother DW1, who was also attesting witness of the Will, had brought the same to her. ced a previous Will, which was cancelled on the day of execution of Will Ex.D2. He further stated that contents of the Will Ex.D2 were read over to the testator, who, after admitting the same as correct, had thumb marked on the Will in his presence and he also thumb marked the same in the presence of testator Tarlochan Singh. He also it Singh was another witness of the Will. They appeared before the Tehsildar, who also read over the contents of the Will to the testator Tarlochan Singh and after admitting its contents to be true, he thumb in his presence. He and Ajit also attested the Will in the The scribe of the Will was examined as DW-6, who stated that the Will Ex.D2 was scribed by him at the instance of ill were read over to him and after thumb marked on it. He also stated that Ajit Singh and Hardip Singh were attesting witnesses. Thus, the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The exclusion of some of legal heirs cannot be a ground to The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Leela and others (supra) is distinguishable on the id case, propounder of the Will herself maintaining good health at the time of execution of the Will and she had not actively participated in execution of the Will but the stamp papers were purchased in her name. Secondly, the stamp papers were purchased at Tenkashi whereas the Will was executed at Madurai. She herself stated that her brother DW1, who was also attesting witness of the Will, had brought the same to her. It was also stated by her ced a previous Will, which was cancelled on the day of execution of Will Ex.D2. He further stated that contents of the Will after admitting the same as also thumb He also it Singh was another witness of the Will. They appeared before the Tehsildar, who also read over the contents of the Will to the contents to be true, he thumb lso attested the Will in the 6, who stated that the Will Ex.D2 was scribed by him at the instance of after He also stated that Ajit Singh and Hardip Singh were attesting witnesses. Thus, the Will dated 24.01.1984 Ex.D2 was duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of The exclusion of some of legal heirs cannot be a ground to The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the (supra) is distinguishable on the id case, propounder of the Will herself good health at the time of execution of the Will and she had not actively participated in execution of the stamp papers were purchased at Tenkashi whereas the Will was executed at Madurai. She herself stated that her brother DW1, who was also attesting It was also stated by her PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 that the Will in question wa of DW2 was that DW1 was not present that she was not aware that her husband was going to execute a Will at Madurai. Furthermore, it was an unregistered Will. In these the Will was discarded; whereas in the present case, the Will has been duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 20. pleads the same but in the present case, no cogent evidence is brought on record to prove that the Will Ex.D2 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is still in possession has no r dated 24.11.1992, while issuing notice of motion, also granted regarding possession till further orders and since the plaintiff was put in possession in lieu of earlier Will dated 31.03.1981, the possession continued in terms of order dated 24.11.1992. 21. in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribe Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. 22. and perversity 351 of 1992 (O&M) -12- that the Will in question was given to her by DW2 in Tenkasi. The evidence of DW2 was that DW1 was not present at Madurai and DW1 that she was not aware that her husband was going to execute a Will at Madurai. Furthermore, it was an unregistered Will. In these the Will was discarded; whereas in the present case, the Will has been duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Fraud and misrepresentation are to be proved by the party, who the same but in the present case, no cogent evidence is brought on record to prove that the Will Ex.D2 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is still in possession has no relevance, as this Court vide order dated 24.11.1992, while issuing notice of motion, also granted regarding possession till further orders and since the plaintiff was put in possession in lieu of earlier Will dated 31.03.1981, the possession continued in terms of order dated 24.11.1992. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal nd others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribe Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above discussion, and perversity in judgment and decree dated s given to her by DW2 in Tenkasi. The evidence at Madurai and DW1 herself stated that she was not aware that her husband was going to execute a Will at Madurai. Furthermore, it was an unregistered Will. In these circumstances, the Will was discarded; whereas in the present case, the Will has been duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Fraud and misrepresentation are to be proved by the party, who the same but in the present case, no cogent evidence is brought on record to prove that the Will Ex.D2 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that elevance, as this Court vide order dated 24.11.1992, while issuing notice of motion, also granted status quo regarding possession till further orders and since the plaintiff was put in possession in lieu of earlier Will dated 31.03.1981, the possession may have continued in terms of order dated 24.11.1992. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality judgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 passed by the s given to her by DW2 in Tenkasi. The evidence stated that she was not aware that her husband was going to execute a Will at circumstances, the Will was discarded; whereas in the present case, the Will has been duly proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 of the Fraud and misrepresentation are to be proved by the party, who the same but in the present case, no cogent evidence is brought on record to prove that the Will Ex.D2 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that elevance, as this Court vide order status quo regarding possession till further orders and since the plaintiff was put in have In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Gurbachan Singh (dead) through questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and d by provisions of this Court finds no illegality 12.10.1992 passed by the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2351 learned 1st appeal is dismissed. 23. September 1 Pankaj* 351 of 1992 (O&M) -13- Appellate Court and the same dismissed. Order dated 24.11.1992 stands vacated. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL September 16, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable is upheld. The regular second Order dated 24.11.1992 stands vacated. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Yes Yes he regular second PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh