RSA-1604-1991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Champa Nitya Nand and Others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Manu MANDEEP PANNU, J 1 The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 25.04.1991 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment and decree Court’s rejection of the Will dated 05.12.1980 propounded by the plaintiff Natha, and set aside the trial Court’s findings insofar as they affected the claim of defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, and proceeded to accept the registered W 17.11.1980 propounded by defendant No. 7, thereby holding him entitled to a 1/4th share in the estate of late Singh Ram. 2. Aggrieved thereby the natural-heir share that defendant No. 1 intestacy, the present R appellant/defendant No.1 1991 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Reserved o Pronounced VERSUS Nitya Nand and Others HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Manuj Chadha, Advocate for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.1-Champa, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1991 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. By the impugned and decree, the lower appellate Court found Court’s rejection of the Will dated 05.12.1980 propounded by the plaintiff Natha, and set aside the trial Court’s findings insofar as they affected the claim of defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, and proceeded to accept the registered W 17.11.1980 propounded by defendant No. 7, thereby holding him entitled to a 1/4th share in the estate of late Singh Ram. Aggrieved thereby as acceptance of defendant No. 7’s Will reduces heir share that defendant No. 1-Champa woul the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by appellant/defendant No.1 – Champa. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1604-1991 (O&M) Reserved on: 22.08.2025 Pronounced on: 28.08.2025 .....Appellant ….Respondents. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. j Chadha, Advocate for the respondents. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Champa, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1991 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. By the impugned , the lower appellate Court found no infirmity in the trial Court’s rejection of the Will dated 05.12.1980 propounded by the plaintiff Natha, and set aside the trial Court’s findings insofar as they affected the claim of defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, and proceeded to accept the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 propounded by defendant No. 7, thereby holding him entitled to a 1/4th acceptance of defendant No. 7’s Will reduces Champa would otherwise receive on econd Appeal has been preferred by The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Champa, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1991 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. By the impugned no infirmity in the trial Court’s rejection of the Will dated 05.12.1980 propounded by the plaintiff Natha, and set aside the trial Court’s findings insofar as they affected the claim of ill dated 17.11.1980 propounded by defendant No. 7, thereby holding him entitled to a 1/4th acceptance of defendant No. 7’s Will reduces d otherwise receive on econd Appeal has been preferred by TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 3. The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreciate the controversy: __________ | Chunni Lal | Siri Ram ______________________ | Natha (Plaintiff) 4. Defendants 3 to 6 (heirs of Sati) are Sati is not disputing the inheritance otherwise Natha (plaintiff), Champa (D Brief Facts 5. Facts in brief are that p possession claiming 1/3rd share (144 kanals 4 marlas) out of land measuring 432 kanals 12 marlas, owned by late Singh Ram, situate in the revenue estate of Village Ram Bass, Tehsil and late Singh Ram at Village Ram Bas 6. The plaintiff founded his t executed by Singh Ram in his favour (Ex. P the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 executed by Singh Ram in 1991 (O&M) The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreciate the controversy: Puran Singh | _______________________________________________________ | Chunni Lal Bansi | Siri Ram Jagdish _____________ | Natha (Plaintiff) Bhagat ______________________________________ | Champa Chand Bai (Def. No.1) (Def. N Nitya Nand (Def. No.7) _________________________________ | Lala Ram Omkar Suriya Saraswati (Def.No.3) (Def.No.4) (Def.No.5) (Def.No.6) Defendants 3 to 6 (heirs of Sati) are not disputing the inheritance otherwise Natha (plaintiff), Champa (D-1), and Nitya Nand (D Facts in brief are that plaintiff- possession claiming 1/3rd share (144 kanals 4 marlas) out of land measuring 432 2 marlas, owned by late Singh Ram, situate in the revenue estate of Village Tehsil and District Mahendragarh, and also two residential houses of ate Singh Ram at Village Ram Bass, Tehsil and The plaintiff founded his title on a Will dated 05.12.1980 allegedly executed by Singh Ram in his favour (Ex. P-1). He also sought a declaration that the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 executed by Singh Ram in -2- The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreciate ____________________________________________________ | Singh Ram | | | | | ________________________________________________ | | Chand Bai Sarti (Def. No.2) | | | Nitya Nand | Def. No.7) | | _________________________________ | | | Lala Ram Omkar Suriya Saraswati (Def.No.3) (Def.No.4) (Def.No.5) (Def.No.6) Defendants 3 to 6 (heirs of Sati) are not central to the present lis not disputing the inheritance otherwise and the live dispute is between 1), and Nitya Nand (D-7). -Natha instituted a suit for joint possession claiming 1/3rd share (144 kanals 4 marlas) out of land measuring 432 2 marlas, owned by late Singh Ram, situate in the revenue estate of Village District Mahendragarh, and also two residential houses of Tehsil and District Mahendragarh. itle on a Will dated 05.12.1980 allegedly 1). He also sought a declaration that the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 executed by Singh Ram in favour of The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreciate lis as the live dispute is between Natha instituted a suit for joint possession claiming 1/3rd share (144 kanals 4 marlas) out of land measuring 432 2 marlas, owned by late Singh Ram, situate in the revenue estate of Village District Mahendragarh, and also two residential houses of itle on a Will dated 05.12.1980 allegedly 1). He also sought a declaration that favour of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 defendant No.7, misrepresentation 7. In her w as a natural heir, claiming 1/3rd share left by her father Singh Ram, on intestacy. 8. In joint w son, Nitya Nand by Singh Ram, received education from with his wife, served him till death. They denied the plaintiff’s Wi 05.12.1980 and asserted that Singh Ram executed the registered Will No. 64 dated 17.11.1980 in favour of defendant No. 7 bequeathing his property to the extent of 1/4th share; thus, defendant No. 7 had 1/4th share and defendant No. 1 also 1/4th share in the suit land owned by Singh Ram 9. Replication was filed by the plaintiff traversing the defence and reiterating the plaint. 10. On the pleadings, 1) 05.12.1980 in favour of plaintiff? OPP 2) 17.11.80 in favour of defendant No.7 OPD. 3) illegal, fictitious, forged, based on fr plaintiff? OPP 4) fictitious, forged, illegal and prepared after the death of Singh Ram OPD (defendant No.2 & 7). 1991 (O&M) 7, Nitya Nand (Ex. DW2/1) was the product of fra misrepresentation and is liable to be set aside. In her written statement defendant No. 1 as a natural heir, claiming 1/3rd share left by her father Singh Ram, on intestacy. In joint written statement of defendants Nitya Nand), they pleaded that defendant No. 7 by Singh Ram, received education from that village with his wife, served him till death. They denied the plaintiff’s Wi 05.12.1980 and asserted that Singh Ram executed the registered Will No. 64 dated 17.11.1980 in favour of defendant No. 7 bequeathing his property to the extent of 1/4th share; thus, defendant No. 7 had 1/4th share and defendant No. 1 also 1/4th are in the suit land owned by Singh Ram, as per their stand. Replication was filed by the plaintiff traversing the defence and reiterating the plaint. On the pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues: Whether deceased Singh Ram exec 05.12.1980 in favour of plaintiff? OPP Whether Singh Ram deceased executed a valid Will on 17.11.80 in favour of defendant No.7 OPD. Whether Will dated 17.11.80 in favour of defendant no.1 illegal, fictitious, forged, based on fr plaintiff? OPP Whether Will dated 05.12.80 in favour of the plaintiff is fictitious, forged, illegal and prepared after the death of Singh Ram OPD (defendant No.2 & 7). -3- (Ex. DW2/1) was the product of fraud and defendant No. 1-Champa asserted her status as a natural heir, claiming 1/3rd share left by her father Singh Ram, on intestacy. ritten statement of defendants No. 2 & 7 (Chand Bai and her hey pleaded that defendant No. 7-Nitya Nand was brought up that village, resided with him and, along with his wife, served him till death. They denied the plaintiff’s Will dated 05.12.1980 and asserted that Singh Ram executed the registered Will No. 64 dated 17.11.1980 in favour of defendant No. 7 bequeathing his property to the extent of 1/4th share; thus, defendant No. 7 had 1/4th share and defendant No. 1 also 1/4th as per their stand. Replication was filed by the plaintiff traversing the defence and trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether deceased Singh Ram executed a valid Will on 05.12.1980 in favour of plaintiff? OPP Whether Singh Ram deceased executed a valid Will on 17.11.80 in favour of defendant No.7 OPD. Whether Will dated 17.11.80 in favour of defendant no.1 illegal, fictitious, forged, based on fraud and void as alleged by the Whether Will dated 05.12.80 in favour of the plaintiff is fictitious, forged, illegal and prepared after the death of Singh Ram ud and Champa asserted her status as a natural heir, claiming 1/3rd share left by her father Singh Ram, on intestacy. (Chand Bai and her was brought up , resided with him and, along ll dated 05.12.1980 and asserted that Singh Ram executed the registered Will No. 64 dated 17.11.1980 in favour of defendant No. 7 bequeathing his property to the extent of 1/4th share; thus, defendant No. 7 had 1/4th share and defendant No. 1 also 1/4th Replication was filed by the plaintiff traversing the defence and uted a valid Will on Whether Singh Ram deceased executed a valid Will on Whether Will dated 17.11.80 in favour of defendant no.1 aud and void as alleged by the Whether Will dated 05.12.80 in favour of the plaintiff is fictitious, forged, illegal and prepared after the death of Singh Ram? TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 5) legal heirs of Singh Ram at the time of his death? OPParties 6) standi? OPD 7) 8) are entitled for compensatory costs? OPD 9) 11. In order to prove his case, p i) Umrao; PW (attesting witness Will) ii) Ex. P deed(s) of 1985; Mark E 12. Defendants have also led following evidence to prove their case: i) Prasad; DW 17.11.1980); DW DW expert. ii) defendant No. 7 dated 17.11.1980; Ex. D 1991 (O&M) If both the Wills are proved to be illegal and legal heirs of Singh Ram at the time of his death? OPParties In case Issue no.1 is not proved whether plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether suit is false and frivolou are entitled for compensatory costs? OPD Relief. In order to prove his case, plaintiff PW-1 Sardar Singh; PW-2 Surj Umrao; PW-5 Natha Ram; PW-6 (attesting witnesses of the Will); PW Will) and Vijay Kumar Rastogi (Hand Writing and Finger Expert) Exhibits: Ex. P-1 – Will dated 05.12.1980; Ex. P Ex. P-3 – Jamabandi for the year 1979 deed(s) of 1985; Mark E – Birth certificate; Mark F Defendants have also led following evidence to prove their case: DW-1- Nitya Nand (defendant examined himself); DW Prasad; DW-3 Bishna Ram (attesting witness of the Will dated 17.11.1980); DW-4 Matadin (attesting witness); DW DW-8 Shri Ram; DW-9 Naresh Kataria, handwriting & fingerprint expert. Exhibits: Ex. DW2/1 – defendant No. 7 dated 17.11.1980; Ex. D -4- If both the Wills are proved to be illegal and void who were the legal heirs of Singh Ram at the time of his death? OPParties In case Issue no.1 is not proved whether plaintiff has no locus Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether suit is false and frivolous and defendants No.2 and 7 are entitled for compensatory costs? OPD led the following evidence: 2 Surjeet Singh; PW-3 Satpal; PW 6 Kanhi Ram and Chandgi Ram of the Will); PW-7 Bansi (attesting witness of the and Vijay Kumar Rastogi (Hand Writing and Finger Expert). Will dated 05.12.1980; Ex. P-2 – Site plan; Jamabandi for the year 1979–80; Mark A to Mark D – Sale Birth certificate; Mark F – Voter list. Defendants have also led following evidence to prove their case:- (defendant examined himself); DW-2 Badri 3 Bishna Ram (attesting witness of the Will dated (attesting witness); DW-5 Jagmal Singh; 9 Naresh Kataria, handwriting & fingerprint Registered Will propounded by defendant No. 7 dated 17.11.1980; Ex. D-2 – School certificate of void who were the In case Issue no.1 is not proved whether plaintiff has no locus- s and defendants No.2 and 7 3 Satpal; PW-4 andgi Ram, 7 Bansi (attesting witness of the Site plan; Sale 2 Badri 3 Bishna Ram (attesting witness of the Will dated Singh; 9 Naresh Kataria, handwriting & fingerprint Registered Will propounded by School certificate of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 Nitya Nand; Ex. D – Expert report. D – Expert report. Findings of the 13. By judgment and decree dated 30.01 dismissed the plaintiff’s Will (17.11.1980) and held that the property of Singh Ram would devolve upon natural heirs, meaning thereby all three daughters of Singh Ram would get 1/3rd share each in the suit property. 14. Plaintiff decree dated 30.01.1989 dated 05.12.1980 Findings of the 15. An appeal was prefe judgment and decree dated 30.01.1989. The appeal wa No. 1-Champa, who stood to lose from 1/3rd on intestacy to 1/4 17.11.1980 is upheld. 16. The learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the trial Court’s findings on Issues 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 and he entitled to 1/4th share in the property of Singh Ram as per the registered Wi 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) and plaintiff’s Will dated 05.12.1980 (Ex. P had already attained finality due to lack of appeal by the plaintiff. 17. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal by the appellant No.1 – Champa. 1991 (O&M) Nitya Nand; Ex. D-3 – Ration-card; Ex. DA Expert report. Findings of the Trial Court By judgment and decree dated 30.01 suit of the plaintiff, having discarded both Will Ex. P-1 (05.12.1980) and defendant No. 7’s and held that the property of Singh Ram would devolve upon meaning thereby all three daughters of Singh Ram would get 1/3rd share each in the suit property. Plaintiff-Natha did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1989 and consequently, the finding discarding pla dated 05.12.1980 (Ex.P-1) attained finality. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court An appeal was preferred by defendant No. 7, judgment and decree dated 30.01.1989. The appeal wa ampa, who stood to lose from 1/3rd on intestacy to 1/4 17.11.1980 is upheld. The learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the trial Court’s findings on Issues 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 and held that defendant No. 7, ed to 1/4th share in the property of Singh Ram as per the registered Wi 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) and at the same time it agreed with the trial Court that the plaintiff’s Will dated 05.12.1980 (Ex. P-1) stood rightly discarded ady attained finality due to lack of appeal by the plaintiff. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal by the appellant . -5- card; Ex. DA – Voter List; Ex. DW9/1 By judgment and decree dated 30.01.1989, the learned Trial Court plaintiff, having discarded both the Wills i.e. 1 (05.12.1980) and defendant No. 7’s Will Ex. DW2/1 and held that the property of Singh Ram would devolve upon meaning thereby all three daughters of Singh Ram would get 1/3rd Natha did not file any appeal against the judgment and consequently, the finding discarding plaintiff’s Will rred by defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1989. The appeal was contested by defendant ampa, who stood to lose from 1/3rd on intestacy to 1/4th if the Will dated The learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the trial Court’s ld that defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand ed to 1/4th share in the property of Singh Ram as per the registered Will dated at the same time it agreed with the trial Court that the 1) stood rightly discarded, a finding that ady attained finality due to lack of appeal by the plaintiff. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal by the appellant-defendant ; Ex. DW9/1 .1989, the learned Trial Court i.e. the Ex. DW2/1 and held that the property of Singh Ram would devolve upon his meaning thereby all three daughters of Singh Ram would get 1/3rd Natha did not file any appeal against the judgment and intiff’s Will , against the s contested by defendant if the Will dated The learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the trial Court’s Nitya Nand, is ll dated at the same time it agreed with the trial Court that the a finding that defendant TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 18. Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the appeal. Submissions of learned counsel for the 19. Learned counsel for the appellant/ that the lower A Ram executed a valid registered Will dated 17.11.1980 Nitya Nand and that submitted that Will propounded by circumstances. T circumstances: i) him after getting it partitioned, and that he was not a resident of Village Ram Bas where and was born at Village plea that Bas ii) counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 is that b witnesses to Ex. DW2/1, namely Bishna and Mathura, are from different villages, which, according to t and iii) counsel for the appellant 1991 (O&M) Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the of learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant/ that the lower Appellate Court wrongly decided Issue No. 2, holding that Singh Ram executed a valid registered Will dated 17.11.1980 and that Nitya Nand thus became entitled to 1/4th share. submitted that Will propounded by Nitya Nand . The appellant specifically urged the following suspicious That Nitya Nand alienated property allegedly bequeathed to him after getting it partitioned, and that he was not a resident of Village Ram Bass. Reliance was placed on S where Nitya Nand described himself as resident of Village and Birth Certificate “Mark E”, showing a male child of was born at Village Jonawas. From these, it was cont plea that Nitya Nand used to serve late Singh Ram in Village Ram Bass is false; he never served Singh Ram by staying in that village. Second suspicious circumstance as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 is that b witnesses to Ex. DW2/1, namely Bishna and Mathura, are from fferent villages, which, according to t and iii) Third suspicious circumstance as point counsel for the appellant is that the -6- Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 – Champa argued ppellate Court wrongly decided Issue No. 2, holding that Singh Ram executed a valid registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex.DW2/1 ) in favour of thus became entitled to 1/4th share. He further Nitya Nand is surrounded by suspicious he appellant specifically urged the following suspicious at Nitya Nand alienated property allegedly bequeathed to him after getting it partitioned, and that he was not a resident of . Reliance was placed on Sale Deed “Mark D”, himself as resident of Village Jonawas showing a male child of Nitya Nand . From these, it was contended that the used to serve late Singh Ram in Village Ram is false; he never served Singh Ram by staying in that village. econd suspicious circumstance as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 is that both attesting witnesses to Ex. DW2/1, namely Bishna and Mathura, are from fferent villages, which, according to the appellant, creates suspicion; suspicious circumstance as pointed out by the learned is that the beneficiary, Nitya Nand took Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the argued ppellate Court wrongly decided Issue No. 2, holding that Singh favour of He further is surrounded by suspicious he appellant specifically urged the following suspicious at Nitya Nand alienated property allegedly bequeathed to him after getting it partitioned, and that he was not a resident of ale Deed “Mark D”, Jonawas, Nitya Nand ended that the used to serve late Singh Ram in Village Ram econd suspicious circumstance as pointed out by the learned oth attesting witnesses to Ex. DW2/1, namely Bishna and Mathura, are from he appellant, creates suspicion; out by the learned took TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 active pa of coercion. iv) described himself as the adopted son of Singh Ram, whereas no such plea was taken by Nitya Nand either in the pleadings or in evidence; this inconsistenc (v) concerning the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some impressions on the society record super had thus become doubtful, requiring that the opinions of both experts be discarded. 20. It is the trial Court had found Singh Ram to be of sound di thumb impression in the presence of the attesting witnesses, and that the thumb impression stood proved by the expert, is an incorrect reading never given such a finding, and the lower A further contended that m questioned, the appellant contending that, as defendant No. 7, his proper remedy was a separate suit rather than an appeal against a decree suit and discarding his Will ExDW2/1. He further submitted that in any case considering both Wills invalid, property must devolve on the defendant No.1- as held by trial Court. 1991 (O&M) active part in the execution of the Will, which of coercion. Fourthly, in Sale Deed “Mark A” executed by Nitya Nand, he described himself as the adopted son of Singh Ram, whereas no such plea was taken by Nitya Nand either in the pleadings or in evidence; this inconsistency was urged as a suspicious circumstance. (v) It was also urged that there existed conflicting opinions concerning the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some impressions on the society record super-imposed, and that the standard had thus become doubtful, requiring that the opinions of both experts be discarded. is further argued that the lower A the trial Court had found Singh Ram to be of sound di thumb impression in the presence of the attesting witnesses, and that the thumb impression stood proved by the expert, is an incorrect reading such a finding, and the lower Appellate Court misdirec further contended that maintainability of the first appeal by questioned, the appellant contending that, as defendant No. 7, his proper remedy was a separate suit rather than an appeal against a decree suit and discarding his Will ExDW2/1. He further submitted that in any case both Wills invalid, property must devolve on the -Champa, being a daughter of Singh Ram, must receive 1/3rd share trial Court. -7- rt in the execution of the Will, which shows Will is the result n Sale Deed “Mark A” executed by Nitya Nand, he described himself as the adopted son of Singh Ram, whereas no such plea was taken by Nitya Nand either in the pleadings or in evidence; y was urged as a suspicious circumstance. urged that there existed conflicting opinions concerning the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some taken as standard signatures were standard impressions used by the experts had thus become doubtful, requiring that the opinions of both experts further argued that the lower Appellate Court’s observation that the trial Court had found Singh Ram to be of sound disposing mind, affixed his thumb impression in the presence of the attesting witnesses, and that the thumb impression stood proved by the expert, is an incorrect reading. The trial Court had ppellate Court misdirected itself. It is y of the first appeal by Nitya Nand was also questioned, the appellant contending that, as defendant No. 7, his proper remedy was a separate suit rather than an appeal against a decree dismissing the plaintiff’s suit and discarding his Will ExDW2/1. He further submitted that in any case both Wills invalid, property must devolve on the natural heirs and Champa, being a daughter of Singh Ram, must receive 1/3rd share shows Will is the result n Sale Deed “Mark A” executed by Nitya Nand, he described himself as the adopted son of Singh Ram, whereas no such plea was taken by Nitya Nand either in the pleadings or in evidence; urged that there existed conflicting opinions concerning the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some were impressions used by the experts had thus become doubtful, requiring that the opinions of both experts ppellate Court’s observation that sposing mind, affixed his thumb impression in the presence of the attesting witnesses, and that the thumb he trial Court had It is was also questioned, the appellant contending that, as defendant No. 7, his proper remedy laintiff’s suit and discarding his Will ExDW2/1. He further submitted that in any case natural heirs and Champa, being a daughter of Singh Ram, must receive 1/3rd share TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent/defendant 21. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.7, on the other hand, contended that impugned judgment challenged, and Champa had admitted the plaintiff’s claim before the trial Court. He further submitted that registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) propounded by found it free of suspicious circumstances after discussing each of the appellant’s objections. It is admitted that the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P discarded and has attained finality. 1/4th share in favour of who had no son and Points for Determination 22. Having heard counsel and perused the record, the following questions arise for determination A) RSA maintainable to 1/4th (on Will). B) DW2/1 (17.11.1980) in favour of Nitya Nand and whether the suspicious circumstances pleaded by the appellant stand dispelled. 1991 (O&M) of learned counsel for the respondent/defendant Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.7, on the other contended that defendant No.1-Champa has no locus to challenge the impugned judgment and decree and it was only the plaintiff who could have challenged, and Champa had admitted the plaintiff’s claim before the trial Court. He further submitted that the lower appellate Court has rightly believed the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) propounded by found it free of suspicious circumstances after discussing each of the appellant’s It is admitted that the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P discarded and has attained finality. On merits, Ex. DW2/1 records a beq 1/4th share in favour of Nitya Nand in recognition of his servic who had no son and Nitya Nand used to stay with and look after him. Points for Determination Having heard counsel and perused the record, the following questions for determination: Maintainability/locus of appellant/defendant No.1 RSA—whether the appeal by the appellant/ maintainable when her share stands reduced from 1/3rd (on intestacy) to 1/4th (on Will). Whether the lower appellate Court rightly accepted the Will Ex. DW2/1 (17.11.1980) in favour of Nitya Nand and whether the suspicious circumstances pleaded by the appellant stand dispelled. -8- of learned counsel for the respondent/defendant Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.7, on the other Champa has no locus to challenge the was only the plaintiff who could have challenged, and Champa had admitted the plaintiff’s claim before the trial Court. the lower appellate Court has rightly believed the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) propounded by defendant No. 7 and found it free of suspicious circumstances after discussing each of the appellant’s It is admitted that the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P-1 (05.12.1980) stands On merits, Ex. DW2/1 records a bequest of in recognition of his services to Singh Ram, used to stay with and look after him. Having heard counsel and perused the record, the following questions appellant/defendant No.1-Champa’s the appellant/defendant No. 1 is when her share stands reduced from 1/3rd (on intestacy) lower appellate Court rightly accepted the Will Ex. DW2/1 (17.11.1980) in favour of Nitya Nand and whether the suspicious circumstances pleaded by the appellant stand dispelled. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.7, on the other Champa has no locus to challenge the was only the plaintiff who could have challenged, and Champa had admitted the plaintiff’s claim before the trial Court. the lower appellate Court has rightly believed the defendant No. 7 and found it free of suspicious circumstances after discussing each of the appellant’s 1 (05.12.1980) stands uest of es to Singh Ram, Having heard counsel and perused the record, the following questions Champa’s defendant No. 1 is when her share stands reduced from 1/3rd (on intestacy) lower appellate Court rightly accepted the Will Ex. DW2/1 (17.11.1980) in favour of Nitya Nand and whether the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 Point A 23. The property of Singh Ram Champa 1/3rd share. The lower appellate Court, by accepting Ex. DW2/1, reduced her effective share to 1/4th. The i rights of appellant/defendant No.1 competent to maintain the rejected and appeal filed by appellant/defendan maintainable. Point B (i) Validity 24. So far as law on proof of Wills & Suspicious Circumstances are concerned, it is settled law that t attestation as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of (1977) 1 SCC 369, are alleged, the propounder doubts. The propounder is required to provide a satisfactory explanat suspicious elements. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 “Mark D”, where Certificate “Mark E” (birth of his male child at 1991 (O&M) Maintainability/Locus of appellant/defendant No.1 The trial Court had dismissed the suit and declared devolution property of Singh Ram on natural heirs, thereby giving Champa 1/3rd share. The lower appellate Court, by accepting Ex. DW2/1, reduced her effective share to 1/4th. The impugned decree thus adversely affects the civil appellant/defendant No.1-Champa. She is therefore an aggrieved person competent to maintain the Regular Second Appeal rejected and appeal filed by appellant/defendan Validityof Will dated 17.11.1980 ( Suspicious Circumstances So far as law on proof of Wills & Suspicious Circumstances are concerned, it is settled law that the propounder must prove due execution and attestation as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of (1977) 1 SCC 369, wherein it has been held that w are alleged, the propounder of the Will carries the burden of dispelling these doubts. The propounder is required to provide a satisfactory explanat suspicious elements. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 “Mark D”, where Nitya Nand gives his residence as Village Certificate “Mark E” (birth of his male child at -9- of appellant/defendant No.1 trial Court had dismissed the suit and declared devolution on natural heirs, thereby giving appellant/defendant No.1 Champa 1/3rd share. The lower appellate Court, by accepting Ex. DW2/1, reduced mpugned decree thus adversely affects the civil Champa. She is therefore an aggrieved person Regular Second Appeal. Thus, objection to locus stands rejected and appeal filed by appellant/defendant No.1 is held to be well Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex.DW2/1) & the Alleged uspicious Circumstances So far as law on proof of Wills & Suspicious Circumstances are he propounder must prove due execution and attestation as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, wherein it has been held that where suspicious circumstances of the Will carries the burden of dispelling these doubts. The propounder is required to provide a satisfactory explanation for any Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 relies on Sale Deed gives his residence as Village Jonawas and Birth Certificate “Mark E” (birth of his male child at Jonawas) to argue that Nitya Nand trial Court had dismissed the suit and declared devolution of appellant/defendant No.1- Champa 1/3rd share. The lower appellate Court, by accepting Ex. DW2/1, reduced mpugned decree thus adversely affects the civil Champa. She is therefore an aggrieved person ection to locus stands t No.1 is held to be well So far as law on proof of Wills & Suspicious Circumstances are he propounder must prove due execution and attestation as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment v. Amrit Kaur, here suspicious circumstances of the Will carries the burden of dispelling these ion for any Deed and Birth Nitya Nand TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 did not reside in Village Ram Ba there, he also adverts to alle suspicious circumstance. 26. However, t these postural indicators of residence are not determinative of the fact of service or co-residence at relev Nitya Nand studied at the school in Village Ram Ba that he stayed with and was brought up by Singh Ram. Even the trial Court that in childhood education at Village Ram Bas education due to lack of facilities at Ram Ba or a birth certificate records association and service with Singh Ram at material times. 27. In Will jurisprudence, residence recitals ancillary, unless they contradict proof of execution/attestation, they do not amount to suspicious circumstances. circumstance. (ii) Attesting Witnesses from Other Villages (Bishna & 28. The appellant stresses that both attesting witnesses to Ex. DW2/1 Bishna and Matu Ram 29. Again, t this Court in the case of the view that constitutes a suspicious circumstance, in particular when they were not shown to be interested in the pla 1991 (O&M) did not reside in Village Ram Bass and hence could no he also adverts to alleged alienations after partition and cited it as a suspicious circumstance. However, the lower appellate Court has correctly these postural indicators of residence are not determinative of the fact of service or residence at relevant times. On the contrary, Ex. studied at the school in Village Ram Ba that he stayed with and was brought up by Singh Ram. Even the trial Court that in childhood Nitya Nand remained with Singh Ram, obtaining primary education at Village Ram Bass, and later went to a nearby village for higher o lack of facilities at Ram Bass. Thus, merely because a sale deed or a birth certificate records Jonawas as residence/birthplace does not negate the association and service with Singh Ram at material times. In Will jurisprudence, residence recitals unless they contradict proof of execution/attestation, they do not amount to suspicious circumstances. Thus, this cannot be said to be a suspicious Attesting Witnesses from Other Villages (Bishna & The appellant stresses that both attesting witnesses to Ex. DW2/1 Matu Ram belong to other villages, urging that this creates suspicion. Again, the contention is misconceived in law. Court in the case of Tara Singh v. Shanti & Ors., the view that merely the witness being of different village does not itself constitutes a suspicious circumstance, in particular when they were not shown to be interested in the plaintiff, biased against the defendants. The Court further held -10- s and hence could not have served Singh Ram ged alienations after partition and cited it as a he lower appellate Court has correctly appreciated that these postural indicators of residence are not determinative of the fact of service or ant times. On the contrary, Ex.D-2, school certificate, shows studied at the school in Village Ram Bass, which aligns with the case that he stayed with and was brought up by Singh Ram. Even the trial Court noted remained with Singh Ram, obtaining primary , and later went to a nearby village for higher s. Thus, merely because a sale deed as residence/birthplace does not negate the association and service with Singh Ram at material times. In Will jurisprudence, residence recitals or later alienations are unless they contradict proof of execution/attestation, they do not amount Thus, this cannot be said to be a suspicious Attesting Witnesses from Other Villages (Bishna & Matu Ram The appellant stresses that both attesting witnesses to Ex. DW2/1 belong to other villages, urging that this creates suspicion. he contention is misconceived in law. A Co-ordinate Bench of Tara Singh v. Shanti & Ors., [PLJ 1988 p. 77], was of merely the witness being of different village does not itself constitutes a suspicious circumstance, in particular when they were not shown to intiff, biased against the defendants. The Court further held t have served Singh Ram ged alienations after partition and cited it as a appreciated that these postural indicators of residence are not determinative of the fact of service or , school certificate, shows th the case noted remained with Singh Ram, obtaining primary , and later went to a nearby village for higher s. Thus, merely because a sale deed as residence/birthplace does not negate the tions are unless they contradict proof of execution/attestation, they do not amount Thus, this cannot be said to be a suspicious atu Ram) viz belong to other villages, urging that this creates suspicion. ordinate Bench of was of merely the witness being of different village does not itself constitutes a suspicious circumstance, in particular when they were not shown to intiff, biased against the defendants. The Court further held TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 that the witnesses being independent persons though from a nearly village and the Will having been executed in view of the above facts, the Will stands proved to be genuine and last will of the the mere fact that an attesting witness is not from the same village is no ground, by itself, to discard his testimony or to dub the Will suspicious. What the law demands is credible evidence that the wi presence was pr There is nothing on record that the attesting witnesses were brought by beneficiary from other village and Will is the result of coerci beneficiary upon testator. It is pertinent to mention here that b witnesses were examined There is no cross Appellant was represented through separate counsel before the trial Court who has not cross-examined any for the appellant does not hold good. iii) 30. It was argued that beneficiary Nitya Nand took active part in the execution of the Will be ruled out. The Supreme Court in Ratnam, (2005) 8 SCC 67 participation of a beneficiary at the time of execution or registration presence of multiple persons influence, coercio objectors to provide substantial evidence to prove that undue influence. 1991 (O&M) the witnesses being independent persons though from a nearly village and the Will having been executed in view of the above facts, the Will stands proved to be genuine and last will of the deceased. Thus, in view of the law laid down above, the mere fact that an attesting witness is not from the same village is no ground, by itself, to discard his testimony or to dub the Will suspicious. What the law demands is credible evidence that the witness is unworthy of reliance or that his presence was procured by fraud/undue influence. However, none is shown here. There is nothing on record that the attesting witnesses were brought by beneficiary from other village and Will is the result of coerci upon testator. It is pertinent to mention here that b witnesses were examined, their statements support due execution and attestation. There is no cross-examination demonstrating impeachment on materia Appellant was represented through separate counsel before the trial Court who has examined any attesting witness. Thus, this objection of learned counsel for the appellant does not hold good. Beneficiary’s Active Participat It was argued that beneficiary Nitya Nand took active part in the execution of the Will and possibility of Will being result of undue influence cannot The Supreme Court in Pentakota Satyanarayan v. Pentakota Seetha Ratnam, (2005) 8 SCC 67, authoritatively holds that mere participation of a beneficiary at the time of execution or registration presence of multiple persons during the same, does influence, coercion, or fraud so as to render a Will suspicious. objectors to provide substantial evidence to prove that undue influence. -11- the witnesses being independent persons though from a nearly village and the Will having been executed in view of the above facts, the Will stands proved to be Thus, in view of the law laid down above, the mere fact that an attesting witness is not from the same village is no ground, by itself, to discard his testimony or to dub the Will suspicious. What the law tness is unworthy of reliance or that his ocured by fraud/undue influence. However, none is shown here. There is nothing on record that the attesting witnesses were brought by beneficiary from other village and Will is the result of coercion or under influence used by upon testator. It is pertinent to mention here that both attesting their statements support due execution and attestation. examination demonstrating impeachment on material particulars. Appellant was represented through separate counsel before the trial Court who has witness. Thus, this objection of learned counsel Beneficiary’s Active Participation in Execution It was argued that beneficiary Nitya Nand took active part in the and possibility of Will being result of undue influence cannot Pentakota Satyanarayan v. Pentakota Seetha , authoritatively holds that mere presence or participation of a beneficiary at the time of execution or registration of Will or the during the same, does not automatically imply undue n, or fraud so as to render a Will suspicious. It is necessary for objectors to provide substantial evidence to prove that beneficiaries exercised the witnesses being independent persons though from a nearly village and the Will having been executed in view of the above facts, the Will stands proved to be Thus, in view of the law laid down above, the mere fact that an attesting witness is not from the same village is no ground, by itself, to discard his testimony or to dub the Will suspicious. What the law tness is unworthy of reliance or that his ocured by fraud/undue influence. However, none is shown here. There is nothing on record that the attesting witnesses were brought by beneficiary on or under influence used by oth attesting their statements support due execution and attestation. l particulars. Appellant was represented through separate counsel before the trial Court who has witness. Thus, this objection of learned counsel It was argued that beneficiary Nitya Nand took active part in the and possibility of Will being result of undue influence cannot Pentakota Satyanarayan v. Pentakota Seetha presence or of Will or the undue It is necessary for exercised TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 31. The any, overbore th influence/coercion in the written statement of the appellant there is no cross represented by separate counsel and there i witnesses in cross dominated or that the Will was fabricated. suspicious also falls on the ground. iv) Sale Deed “Mark A” Recita 32. The appellant urges that, in Sale Deed “Mark A”, Nitya Nand described himself as the adopted son of Singh Ram, but no the suit, hence, this inconsistency is a suspicious circumstance. The argument is untenable. The validity of a Will does not hinge upon whether the beneficiary is the adopted son. The Will in question (Ex. DW2/1) predates the sale deed recital Even assuming the ad execution/attestation of the earlier Will. evidences fraud in the making of the Will, this point remains collateral and insufficient to taint the testamen v) 33. The appellant contends that there were conflicting opinions regarding the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some standard impressions used by the expert were smudged or super the opinions of the experts must be discarded. 1991 (O&M) The evidence here lacks any proof that Nitya Nand’s participation, if any, overbore the volition of Singh Ram. There is no plea of undue influence/coercion in the written statement of the appellant there is no cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant who represented by separate counsel and there i witnesses in cross-examination, and no circumstance showing that the testator was dominated or that the Will was fabricated. suspicious also falls on the ground. Sale Deed “Mark A” Recital—Claim of “Adopted Son” vs. No Plea in Suit The appellant urges that, in Sale Deed “Mark A”, Nitya Nand described himself as the adopted son of Singh Ram, but no hence, this inconsistency is a suspicious circumstance. The argument is untenable. The validity of a Will does not hinge upon whether the beneficiary is the adopted son. The Will in question (Ex. DW2/1) predates the sale deed recital ven assuming the adoption recital was inaccurate, it does not impeach the due execution/attestation of the earlier Will. There is absence of evidences fraud in the making of the Will, this point remains collateral and insufficient to taint the testament. Thumb Impressions/Expert Evidence “Conflicting Opinions The appellant contends that there were conflicting opinions regarding the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some standard impressions used by the were smudged or super-imposed said to be from society records, and hence the opinions of the experts must be discarded. -12- here lacks any proof that Nitya Nand’s participation, if e volition of Singh Ram. There is no plea of undue influence/coercion in the written statement of the appellant. Also as stated above examination by the learned counsel for the appellant who was represented by separate counsel and there is no suggestion to the attesting examination, and no circumstance showing that the testator was dominated or that the Will was fabricated. Thus, this circumstance being Claim of “Adopted Son” vs. No The appellant urges that, in Sale Deed “Mark A”, Nitya Nand described himself as the adopted son of Singh Ram, but no such plea was taken in hence, this inconsistency is a suspicious circumstance. The argument is untenable. The validity of a Will does not hinge upon whether the beneficiary is the adopted son. The Will in question (Ex. DW2/1) predates the sale deed recital option recital was inaccurate, it does not impeach the due There is absence of proof that the recital evidences fraud in the making of the Will, this point remains collateral and Expert Evidence - “Super - imposed” / “Conflicting Opinions” The appellant contends that there were conflicting opinions regarding the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some standard impressions used by the said to be from society records, and hence here lacks any proof that Nitya Nand’s participation, if e volition of Singh Ram. There is no plea of undue . Also as stated above was o suggestion to the attesting examination, and no circumstance showing that the testator was Thus, this circumstance being Claim of “Adopted Son” vs. No The appellant urges that, in Sale Deed “Mark A”, Nitya Nand such plea was taken in hence, this inconsistency is a suspicious circumstance. The argument is untenable. The validity of a Will does not hinge upon whether the beneficiary is the adopted son. The Will in question (Ex. DW2/1) predates the sale deed recital. option recital was inaccurate, it does not impeach the due proof that the recital evidences fraud in the making of the Will, this point remains collateral and The appellant contends that there were conflicting opinions regarding the thumb impressions of Singh Ram, that some standard impressions used by the said to be from society records, and hence TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 34. As the lower handwriting & fingerprint expert, compared the disputed thumb impre DW2/1 with available standard impressions. It is true that some of the standard impressions were unfit due to ink smudging, but others were fit for comparison and were used. The expert opinion witness proof, corroborates the attesting witnesses’ depositions. 35. Crucially, attesting witnesses Bishna and Mathura were examined to prove execution and attestation discussed above defeat a Will where there is credible ocular proof of execution/attestation. objection of the learned counsel for the appellant also fails. 36. Now coming to the allegations of Appellate Court of Trial Court’s Observations appellate Court wrongly assumed that the trial Court had held Singh Ram to be of sound disposing mind and that hi trial Court had in fact discarded both Wills. 37. The submission does not advance the appellant’s case. The lower appellate Court undertook a full re Court and recorded its own findings on soundness, execution, and attestation of Ex. DW2/1. Even if any stray ob infelicitously phrased, the impugned decree rests on the lower appellate Court’s independent appreciation of attesting witnesses, documentary exhibits, and expert opinion. No perversity or illegality in that apprec objection also cannot stand and is hereby rejected. 1991 (O&M) As the lower Appellate Court has noticed, DW handwriting & fingerprint expert, compared the disputed thumb impre DW2/1 with available standard impressions. It is true that some of the standard impressions were unfit due to ink smudging, but others were fit for comparison and were used. The expert opinion though not a substitute for mandatory attesting corroborates the attesting witnesses’ depositions. Crucially, attesting witnesses Bishna and Mathura were examined to prove execution and attestation. The appellant did not cross discussed above. In Will cases, imperfections in some comparison material do not defeat a Will where there is credible ocular proof of execution/attestation. objection of the learned counsel for the appellant also fails. Now coming to the allegations of ppellate Court of Trial Court’s Observations, t appellate Court wrongly assumed that the trial Court had held Singh Ram to be of sound disposing mind and that his thumb impression stood proved, in fact discarded both Wills. The submission does not advance the appellant’s case. The lower appellate Court undertook a full re-appraisal of evidence as the first appellate Court and recorded its own findings on soundness, execution, and attestation of Ex. DW2/1. Even if any stray observation ascribed to the trial Court was infelicitously phrased, the impugned decree rests on the lower appellate Court’s independent appreciation of attesting witnesses, documentary exhibits, and expert perversity or illegality in that apprec also cannot stand and is hereby rejected. -13- ppellate Court has noticed, DW-9 Naresh Kataria, handwriting & fingerprint expert, compared the disputed thumb impressions on Ex. DW2/1 with available standard impressions. It is true that some of the standard impressions were unfit due to ink smudging, but others were fit for comparison and though not a substitute for mandatory attesting corroborates the attesting witnesses’ depositions. Crucially, attesting witnesses Bishna and Mathura were examined to he appellant did not cross-examine them ons in some comparison material do not defeat a Will where there is credible ocular proof of execution/attestation. This objection of the learned counsel for the appellant also fails. Now coming to the allegations of alleged misreading by the Lower , the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court wrongly assumed that the trial Court had held Singh Ram to be of s thumb impression stood proved, whereas the The submission does not advance the appellant’s case. The lower appraisal of evidence as the first appellate Court and recorded its own findings on soundness, execution, and attestation of servation ascribed to the trial Court was infelicitously phrased, the impugned decree rests on the lower appellate Court’s independent appreciation of attesting witnesses, documentary exhibits, and expert perversity or illegality in that appreciation is demonstrated. This also cannot stand and is hereby rejected. 9 Naresh Kataria, ssions on Ex. DW2/1 with available standard impressions. It is true that some of the standard impressions were unfit due to ink smudging, but others were fit for comparison and though not a substitute for mandatory attesting- Crucially, attesting witnesses Bishna and Mathura were examined to examine them as ons in some comparison material do not This isreading by the Lower he appellant submits that the lower appellate Court wrongly assumed that the trial Court had held Singh Ram to be of whereas the The submission does not advance the appellant’s case. The lower appraisal of evidence as the first appellate Court and recorded its own findings on soundness, execution, and attestation of servation ascribed to the trial Court was infelicitously phrased, the impugned decree rests on the lower appellate Court’s independent appreciation of attesting witnesses, documentary exhibits, and expert iation is demonstrated. This TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 38. It is undisputed that the trial Court discarded the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P-1, and the plaintiff did not appeal. The lower appellate Court concurred. The finding has atta proceeds only on the contest regarding Ex. DW2/1. the RSA by the applicant/defendant No.1 stands adversely No.7 Nitya Nand, (Ex.DW2/1) through th expert corroboration circumstances having been dispelled by propounder and execution and attestation proved by propounder, the Will (Ex.DW2/1), stands proved on record. 39. In addition, the classic tests in fortify the approach that once suspicion is plausibly dispelled, the Will must be upheld. Conclusion 40. On a comprehensive re perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the lower appell acceptance of the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) executed by late Singh Ram in favour of defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, to the extent of 1/4th share in his property. The specific suspicious circumstances pleaded by the appellant have been dealt with point stands duly proved in accordance with law. 41. The finding of the trial Court discarding the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P (05.12.1980) has already attained finality and remains undisturb 1991 (O&M) It is undisputed that the trial Court discarded the plaintiff’s Will Ex. 1, and the plaintiff did not appeal. The lower appellate Court concurred. The finding has attained finality and is not open in the present RSA. This Court proceeds only on the contest regarding Ex. DW2/1. the applicant/defendant No.1 Champa is maintainable, as her share stands adversely affected by the impugned decree and the propounder No.7 Nitya Nand, has proved the due execution and attestation of the Will through the attesting witnesses Bishna and Mathura expert corroboration Naresh Kataria’s report having been dispelled by propounder and execution and attestation proved by propounder, the Will (Ex.DW2/1), stands proved on record. In addition, the classic tests in Jaswant Kaur (1977) 1 SCC 369 fortify the approach that once execution/attestation are proved and alleged suspicion is plausibly dispelled, the Will must be upheld. On a comprehensive re-appraisal of the record, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the lower appell acceptance of the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) executed by late Singh Ram in favour of defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, to the extent of 1/4th share in his property. The specific suspicious circumstances pleaded by the appellant e been dealt with point-wise and found to be without substance. The Will stands duly proved in accordance with law. The finding of the trial Court discarding the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P (05.12.1980) has already attained finality and remains undisturb -14- It is undisputed that the trial Court discarded the plaintiff’s Will Ex. 1, and the plaintiff did not appeal. The lower appellate Court concurred. The ined finality and is not open in the present RSA. This Court proceeds only on the contest regarding Ex. DW2/1. Having observed above that Champa is maintainable, as her share decree and the propounder-defendant has proved the due execution and attestation of the Will e attesting witnesses Bishna and Mathura and has furnished Kataria’s report and the alleged suspicious having been dispelled by propounder and execution and attestation proved by propounder, the Will (Ex.DW2/1), stands proved on record. Jaswant Kaur (1977) 1 SCC 369 execution/attestation are proved and alleged suspicion is plausibly dispelled, the Will must be upheld. appraisal of the record, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the lower appellate Court’s acceptance of the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) executed by late Singh Ram in favour of defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, to the extent of 1/4th share in his property. The specific suspicious circumstances pleaded by the appellant wise and found to be without substance. The Will The finding of the trial Court discarding the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P (05.12.1980) has already attained finality and remains undisturbed. It is undisputed that the trial Court discarded the plaintiff’s Will Ex. 1, and the plaintiff did not appeal. The lower appellate Court concurred. The ined finality and is not open in the present RSA. This Court Having observed above that Champa is maintainable, as her share defendant has proved the due execution and attestation of the Will furnished icious having been dispelled by propounder and execution and attestation Jaswant Kaur (1977) 1 SCC 369 execution/attestation are proved and alleged appraisal of the record, this Court finds no ate Court’s acceptance of the registered Will dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) executed by late Singh Ram in favour of defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand, to the extent of 1/4th share in his property. The specific suspicious circumstances pleaded by the appellant wise and found to be without substance. The Will The finding of the trial Court discarding the plaintiff’s Will Ex. P-1 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1604-1991 42. The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.1991 passed by the Lower Appellate Court therefore calls for no interference in second appeal. Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. 43. Pending August 28, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 1991 (O&M) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.1991 passed by the Lower Appellate Court therefore calls for no interference in second appeal. Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -15- The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.1991 passed by the Lower Appellate Court therefore calls for no interference in second appeal. The application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.1991 passed by the The TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document