RSA-5252-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jeewan Kumar and Another Rama Rani and Another CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte Vide order dated 28.02.2023. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri Jeewan Kumar, the learned First Appellate allowed the appeal preferred by respondent judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 of the plaintiff’s suit by declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in favour of the appellant. The appellant challenges the correctness of that appellate Court’s which the mutation was sanctioned is a proved in accordance with law. 2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Reserved on: Date of Decision : Jeewan Kumar and Another VERSUS Rama Rani and Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte Vide order dated 28.02.2023. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri impugning the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. By that judgment allowed the appeal preferred by respondent–plaintiff, Ms. Rama Rani, reversed the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 of the plaintiff’s suit by declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in favour of the appellant. The appellant challenges the correctness of that Court’s decree and maintains that the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D which the mutation was sanctioned is a genuine testamentary instrument duly proved in accordance with law. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5252-2018 (O&M) Reserved on:-15.09.2025 Date of Decision : 16.09.2025 ....Appellants ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by Court. By that judgment, the First Appellate Court plaintiff, Ms. Rama Rani, reversed the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiff’s suit by declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of 1/10th share in the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in favour of the appellant. The appellant challenges the correctness of that learned maintains that the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) on genuine testamentary instrument duly - This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court plaintiff, Ms. Rama Rani, reversed the ecreed the share in the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in learned 2) on genuine testamentary instrument duly TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 Factual Background 2. The relevant facts, in brief are that the suit land comprises 19 marlas fully detailed in plaint, Gurdaspur, as per jamabandi for the year 2002 history of which is mater leaving widow Banti, two sons Ram Lubhaya and Som Prakash, and two Kamla and Punni heirs in equal shares, i.e., Devi/testatrix died on (daughter), and Naval share of Punni devolved upon her two children in equal respondents claimed 1/10 share. had empowered her maternal uncle, Ram Power of Attorney dated 12.06.2002 to get the Later, on obtaining certified copies from revenue record on plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership column, instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the name of defendant No.1 dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D The plaintiff alleged that the Will was a connivance with witnesses and cancelled the Power of Attorney declaration and injunction. 3. The was that the testatrix validly executed the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D 2018 (O&M) Factual Background The relevant facts, in brief are that the suit land comprises 19 marlas fully detailed in plaint, situated in Village Dodwan, Tehsil and as per jamabandi for the year 2002 history of which is material. The common ancestor, leaving widow Banti, two sons Ram Lubhaya and Som Prakash, and two Kamla and Punni alias Shakuntla Devi. The estate devolved upon these five legal heirs in equal shares, i.e., each got 1/5th share. S testatrix died on 24.01.1996 leaving behind two children, namely, (daughter), and Naval Kishore (son) (respondents share of Punni devolved upon her two children in equal claimed 1/10 share. The plaintiff/respondent had empowered her maternal uncle, Ram Lubhaya (defendant No.2), by a general Power of Attorney dated 12.06.2002 to get the er, on obtaining certified copies from revenue record on plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the defendant No.1 (appellant), son of Ram Lubhaya, on the basis of a Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) allegedly executed by Punni in favour of the appellant. The plaintiff alleged that the Will was a forgery effected by the defendants in connivance with witnesses and scribe and that Mutation Power of Attorney on 03.01.2011 and filed the suit seeking and injunction. The defendants denied the allegation of forgery. Their pleaded case testatrix validly executed the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D -2- The relevant facts, in brief are that the suit land comprises 88 kanals in Village Dodwan, Tehsil and District as per jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. The protracted family ial. The common ancestor, Nikka Ram, died in 1959 leaving widow Banti, two sons Ram Lubhaya and Som Prakash, and two daughters . The estate devolved upon these five legal share. Smt. Punni alias Shakuntala 6 leaving behind two children, namely, Rama Rani (respondents-herein). On succession the 1/5 share of Punni devolved upon her two children in equal shares and thus the The plaintiff/respondent further pleaded that she Lubhaya (defendant No.2), by a general Power of Attorney dated 12.06.2002 to get the inheritance mutation sanctioned. er, on obtaining certified copies from revenue record on 30.11.2010, the plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the (appellant), son of Ram Lubhaya, on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Punni in favour of the appellant. forgery effected by the defendants in nd that Mutation No.3198 was illegal. S on 03.01.2011 and filed the suit seeking defendants denied the allegation of forgery. Their pleaded case testatrix validly executed the Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) in - 88 kanals District he protracted family Nikka Ram, died in 1959 daughters . The estate devolved upon these five legal mt. Punni alias Shakuntala Rama Rani . On succession the 1/5 s and thus the pleaded that she Lubhaya (defendant No.2), by a general inheritance mutation sanctioned. 30.11.2010, the plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership instead Mutation No.3198 dated 24.07.2006 recorded the suit share in the (appellant), son of Ram Lubhaya, on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Punni in favour of the appellant. forgery effected by the defendants in No.3198 was illegal. She on 03.01.2011 and filed the suit seeking defendants denied the allegation of forgery. Their pleaded case 2) in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 favour of the appellant for reasons two witnesses, that was no fraud. The defe upon attesting witnesses. 4. On the pleadings may be summarized 1. (OPP) 2. 3. 4. (OPD) 5. 5. The plaintiff examined the year 2002-03 Attorney Ex.P-3 and Deed of plaintiffs closed their evidence. 6. The defendants examined attesting witness of the Will dated 07.12.1995 as testatrix) as DW and was involved in obtaining mutation as DW produced on record as Ex.D Findings of the Trial Court 7. After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held that the Will Ex.D 2018 (O&M) favour of the appellant for reasons stated in the Will, that the Will was attested by two witnesses, that mutation No.3198 was duly sanctioned and valid, and that there was no fraud. The defendants led oral evidence in support of Ex.D upon attesting witnesses. On the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the principal issues which summarized as follows: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for (OPP) Whether the suit is not maintainable Whether the suit of the plaintiff Whether the suit is bad for non (OPD) Relief. The plaintiff examined herself as PW 03 Ex.P-1, copy of mutation (challenged) Ex.P 3 and Deed of Cancellation dated 03.01.2011 Ex.P plaintiffs closed their evidence. The defendants examined Jeewan Kumar as attesting witness of the Will dated 07.12.1995 as DW-3 and Ram Lubhaya, who also testified as a witness to the Will involved in obtaining mutation as DW produced on record as Ex.D-2. Thereafter the defendants closed their evidence. Findings of the Trial Court After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held Ex.D-2 had been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian -3- stated in the Will, that the Will was attested by mutation No.3198 was duly sanctioned and valid, and that there led oral evidence in support of Ex.D-2 and relied the Trial Court framed the principal issues which Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for maintainable in the present form? (OPD) of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? (OPD) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties herself as PW-1 and exhibited Jamabandi for , copy of mutation (challenged) Ex.P-2, General Power of Cancellation dated 03.01.2011 Ex.P-4. Thereafter the Jeewan Kumar as DW-1, Dalip Singh, attesting witness of the Will dated 07.12.1995 as DW-2, Naval Kishore (son of the who also testified as a witness to the Will involved in obtaining mutation as DW-4. The Will dated 17.12.1995 was Thereafter the defendants closed their evidence. After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held 2 had been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian - stated in the Will, that the Will was attested by mutation No.3198 was duly sanctioned and valid, and that there 2 and relied the Trial Court framed the principal issues which Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? ? (OPD) is barred by limitation? (OPD) of necessary parties? 1 and exhibited Jamabandi for 2, General Power of Thereafter the Dalip Singh, Naval Kishore (son of the who also testified as a witness to the Will The Will dated 17.12.1995 was After evaluating oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court held 2 had been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 Evidence Act, 1872 DW-2 and DW execution of the Will by mind and that she had affixed her thumb impression and signed in the witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce cogent evidence to prove forgery the plaintiff Consequently, the Trial Court upheld the appellant and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit Findings of the First Appellate Court 8. Feeling aggrieved, t Appellate Court re Appellate Court took the view that the Will Ex.D suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due execution. The Appellate Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows: (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it speci which thumb document. (b) Evidence disclosed that the Will had been typed/described by of testatrix Sh. independence of its preparation. (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by Jeewan Naval Kishore who had actually attended and cared for the 2018 (O&M) , 1872. The Trial Court recorded that two attesting witnesses 2 and DW-4 had been examined and that execution of the Will by the testatrix while she was possessed of mind and that she had affixed her thumb impression and signed in the witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce cogent evidence to prove forgery or fraud and that without corroborative material evidence were insufficient. Consequently, the Trial Court upheld Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of the appellant and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit vide Findings of the First Appellate Court Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court re-examined the record and Appellate Court took the view that the Will Ex.D suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due execution. The Appellate Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows: (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it speci which thumb impression was affixed; the Will was an unregistered document. (b) Evidence disclosed that the Will had been typed/described by of testatrix Sh. Naval Kishore DW independence of its preparation. (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by Jeewan Kumar were belied by oral evidence showing that it was Naval Kishore who had actually attended and cared for the -4- Court recorded that two attesting witnesses 4 had been examined and that their testimony established due the testatrix while she was possessed of a sound disposing mind and that she had affixed her thumb impression and signed in the presence of witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce or fraud and that, mere assertions of forgery by without corroborative material evidence were insufficient. Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of vide judgment dated 16.11.2016. he plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First examined the record and reversed the Trial Court. The Appellate Court took the view that the Will Ex.D-2 was surrounded by a cluster of suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due execution. The Appellate Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows: (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it speci affixed; the Will was an unregistered (b) Evidence disclosed that the Will had been typed/described by DW-3, which cast doubt on the (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by oral evidence showing that it was Naval Kishore who had actually attended and cared for the testatrix - Court recorded that two attesting witnesses viz their testimony established due a sound disposing presence of witnesses. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to produce mere assertions of forgery by without corroborative material evidence were insufficient. Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of he plaintiff preferred an appeal. The First reversed the Trial Court. The by a cluster of suspicious circumstances and that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove due (a) The Will did not specify the age of the testatrix nor did it specify affixed; the Will was an unregistered son 3, which cast doubt on the (c) Material recitals in the Will about services allegedly rendered by oral evidence showing that it was testatrix, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 the beneficiary (appellant) was shown to be employed e not in (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of the Will (17.12.1995) and (24.07.2006) day,” which rais (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate Court to disbelieve the was not a genuine instrument. By natural Punni devolved upon her two children a to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of defendant No.1 (appellant) was Appellate Court Submissions of learned counsel for the parties 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Appellate Court without proper reason. It was pointed attesting witnesses DW execution of the Will dated 17.12.1995 and that DW the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported execution rather than disproved it. Learned counsel emphasi the Evidence Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting witnesses and that if two attesting satisfied. Once the primary evidence has been so led, fabrication lies on the party asserting it and that such party must 2018 (O&M) the beneficiary (appellant) was shown to be employed e not in attendance. (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of the Will (17.12.1995) and the date when the mutat (24.07.2006); during this interval the Will “did not day,” which raised suspicion. (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate Court to disbelieve the documentary exhibit and to hold that the Will was not a genuine instrument. By natural Punni devolved upon her two children a to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of defendant No.1 (appellant) was set aside. The Appellate Court was rendered on 07.03.2018. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Learned counsel for the appellant Appellate Court erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court without proper reason. It was pointed out that the defendants had examined two attesting witnesses DW-2 and DW-4 who had execution of the Will dated 17.12.1995 and that DW the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported execution rather than disproved it. Learned counsel emphasi Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting witnesses and that if two attesting witnesses are examined the requirement is nce the primary evidence has been so led, fabrication lies on the party asserting it and that such party must -5- the beneficiary (appellant) was shown to be employed elsewhere and (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of the date when the mutation was sanctioned during this interval the Will “did not see the light of (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate documentary exhibit and to hold that the Will was not a genuine instrument. By natural succession the 1/5 share of Punni devolved upon her two children and the plaintiff was declared to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of set aside. The impugned decree was rendered on 07.03.2018. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the First erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court out that the defendants had examined two 4 who had positively deposed to the due execution of the Will dated 17.12.1995 and that DW-3 Naval Kishore, the son of the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported execution rather than disproved it. Learned counsel emphasised that Section 63 of Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting witnesses are examined the requirement is nce the primary evidence has been so led, the burden to show forgery or fabrication lies on the party asserting it and that such party must lead cogent - lsewhere and (d) There was an inordinate delay of eleven years between the date of ion was sanctioned see the light of (e) Taken cumulatively, these circumstances caused the Appellate documentary exhibit and to hold that the Will succession the 1/5 share of nd the plaintiff was declared to be owner in possession of 1/10 share; the mutation in favour of by vehemently urged that the First erred in reversing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court out that the defendants had examined two positively deposed to the due , the son of the testatrix, had also given evidence which, properly considered, supported sed that Section 63 of Act requires that a Will be proved by the evidence of attesting witnesses are examined the requirement is ry or lead cogent TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation of evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly overturn a trial consider material 10. Learned counsel for the respondent Appellate Court circumstances which, taken pressed the points that the Will had been were inconsistent with material facts about remained concealed for a long period before mutation and cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested after-thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, where strong and cogent, can outweigh mere attestation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which must be proved in witnesses are examined and their instrument as proved. At the same time the law surrounded by suspicious circumstances the tendency is to treat the of the propounder of the Will as heavier are raised, a Court must scrutini the primary evidence examine the surrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the Trial Court after 2018 (O&M) evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly turn a trial court’s findings unless perversity, misappreciation or failure to consider material evidence is demonstrated. Learned counsel for the respondent Appellate Court and urged that the Will was indeed surrounded circumstances which, taken together, rendered the Will unreliable. Learned counsel pressed the points that the Will had been typed by were inconsistent with material facts about attendance and services, th remained concealed for a long period before mutation and cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, and cogent, can outweigh mere attestation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which must be proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. When witnesses are examined and their testimony is satisfactory, a court may accept the instrument as proved. At the same time the law surrounded by suspicious circumstances the tendency is to treat the of the propounder of the Will as heavier. In other words, where reasonable ourt must scrutinise the evidence carefully. The C primary evidence i.e. attesting witnesses and the document itself and also rrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the Trial Court after appreciating evidence of witnesses and seeing their demeanour -6- evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly court’s findings unless perversity, misappreciation or failure to Learned counsel for the respondents supported the approach of the and urged that the Will was indeed surrounded by suspicious together, rendered the Will unreliable. Learned counsel typed by son of testatrix, that the recitals attendance and services, that the Will remained concealed for a long period before mutation and that subsequent cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, and cogent, can outweigh mere attestation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which accordance with the Evidence Act. When two attesting testimony is satisfactory, a court may accept the instrument as proved. At the same time the law recognises that if a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances the tendency is to treat the proof required n other words, where reasonable doubts se the evidence carefully. The Court must weigh attesting witnesses and the document itself and also rrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the witnesses and seeing their demeanour - evidence of fraud. Reliance was placed on the Trial Court’s thorough appreciation evidence and on the settled principle that an appellate court should not lightly court’s findings unless perversity, misappreciation or failure to supported the approach of the by suspicious together, rendered the Will unreliable. Learned counsel , that the recitals at the Will that subsequent cancellation of the Power of Attorney and the conduct of defendants suggested an thought or fabricated documentation. Counsel submitted that suspicion, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the It is well established that a Will is a testamentary instrument which two attesting testimony is satisfactory, a court may accept the recognises that if a Will is proof required doubts ourt must weigh attesting witnesses and the document itself and also rrounding facts. Where findings of fact have been recorded by the witnesses and seeing their demeanour TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 and where there is no perversity, the A substituting its view. 13. This Co upon by the First Appellate Court and the analysis of the record, these circumstances either do to them by the Appellat cumulatively to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial Court’s credibility findings. Absence of testatrix’s age and the question of thumb impression particulars 14. The express statement of whether a right or left thumb view, while such descriptive testatrix’s exact age or the precise description of which thumb affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no statutory requirement that a Will must con instrument must are whether the document presence of attesting witnesses and their had requisite testamentary capacity, and that the testatrix’s intent. In the record before this Court there is positive two attesting witnesses (DW the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and thereafter the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential formalities of execution. 2018 (O&M) re there is no perversity, the Appellate substituting its view. This Court now proceeds to discuss in detail each circumstance relied upon by the First Appellate Court and the respondent, and explain why, on critical analysis of the record, these circumstances either do to them by the Appellate Court or they are insufficient to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial Court’s credibility findings. Absence of testatrix’s age and the question of thumb impression particulars The Appellate Court emphasised that the Will did not contain an express statement of the age of the testatrix and that the Will did not clearly record whether a right or left thumb impression had been affixed. while such descriptive details may sometimes assist a testatrix’s exact age or the precise description of which thumb affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no statutory requirement that a Will must contain the testator’s age or that the instrument must specify which thumb was impressed. The decisive considerations are whether the document bears the formalities of testamentary execution presence of attesting witnesses and their corroborating testimo had requisite testamentary capacity, and that the testatrix’s intent. In the record before this Court there is positive two attesting witnesses (DW-2 and DW-4) who stated that the testatrix adm the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential formalities of execution. The absence of an age recital therefore constitutes at most -7- ppellate Court must be cautious in discuss in detail each circumstance relied respondent, and explain why, on critical analysis of the record, these circumstances either do not carry the weight attributed Court or they are insufficient either singly or to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial Absence of testatrix’s age and the question of thumb impression particulars Appellate Court emphasised that the Will did not contain an the age of the testatrix and that the Will did not clearly record impression had been affixed. This Court is of the details may sometimes assist a Court, the absence of a testatrix’s exact age or the precise description of which thumb impression was affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no tain the testator’s age or that the specify which thumb was impressed. The decisive considerations bears the formalities of testamentary execution corroborating testimony, that the testatrix had requisite testamentary capacity, and that the instrument expresses the testatrix’s intent. In the record before this Court there is positive testimony from 4) who stated that the testatrix admitted the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential The absence of an age recital therefore constitutes at most - be cautious in discuss in detail each circumstance relied respondent, and explain why, on critical not carry the weight attributed singly or to displace the direct evidence of attesting witnesses and the Trial Appellate Court emphasised that the Will did not contain an the age of the testatrix and that the Will did not clearly record This Court is of the ourt, the absence of a impression was affixed is not per se a ground to declare a Will invalid or forged. There is no tain the testator’s age or that the specify which thumb was impressed. The decisive considerations i.e. , that the testatrix instrument expresses the testimony from itted the contents to be correct and then put her thumb impression in their presence and the witnesses signed. That testimony directly addresses the essential The absence of an age recital therefore constitutes at most TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 a peripheral irregularity and not concrete indicia of non The unregistered nature of the Will 15. The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance by the Appellate in law. Many private Wills executed and attested. The principal evidential considerations weight of authenticity but absence of registration does not make a Therefore the unregistered status of Ex.D circumstance of sufficient force to overt witnesses. Typing/description of the Will by the son of the testatrix (DW 16. The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or described by Naval suspicious circumstance. In Ordinarily, one might treat involvement of an heir in possibility of self reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, he would have inherited one Ex.D-2 expressly nephew of the testatrix. Despite Will but also appeared as DW his mother. 2018 (O&M) a peripheral irregularity and not evidence of fabrication in the absence of other concrete indicia of non-genuineness. The unregistered nature of the Will The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance by the Appellate Court. It must be emphasised that registration of a Will is optional ny private Wills are never registered and yet are perfectly valid if duly executed and attested. The principal consequence of non evidential considerations ie. registered documents weight of authenticity but absence of registration does not make a Therefore the unregistered status of Ex.D-2 cannot itself constitute suspicious circumstance of sufficient force to overthrow positive testimony of attesting Typing/description of the Will by the son of the testatrix (DW The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or described by Naval Kishore (DW-3), son of the testatrix suspicious circumstance. In the view of this Court, Ordinarily, one might treat involvement of an heir in possibility of self-interest, however, in the present case the factua reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, he would have inherited one-half of her 1/5 share in the estate. Yet, the Will 2 expressly disinherited him and bequeathed the property to the appella nephew of the testatrix. Despite this, Naval Kishore not only did not challenge the Will but also appeared as DW-3 and admitted that the Will had been executed by -8- evidence of fabrication in the absence of other The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance must be emphasised that registration of a Will is optional are never registered and yet are perfectly valid if duly consequence of non-registration relates to registered documents ordinarily carry an evidentiary weight of authenticity but absence of registration does not make a Will invalid. 2 cannot itself constitute suspicious hrow positive testimony of attesting Typing/description of the Will by the son of the testatrix (DW-3/Naval Kishore) The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or 3), son of the testatrix, and treated this as a the view of this Court, this reasoning is flawed. Ordinarily, one might treat involvement of an heir in preparing a Will as creating however, in the present case the factual position is the reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, half of her 1/5 share in the estate. Yet, the Will disinherited him and bequeathed the property to the appellant, a this, Naval Kishore not only did not challenge the that the Will had been executed by - evidence of fabrication in the absence of other The fact that the Will was unregistered was given some significance must be emphasised that registration of a Will is optional are never registered and yet are perfectly valid if duly registration relates to ordinarily carry an evidentiary Will invalid. 2 cannot itself constitute suspicious hrow positive testimony of attesting 3/Naval Kishore) The First Appellate Court observed that the Will had been typed or , and treated this as a this reasoning is flawed. preparing a Will as creating a position is the reverse. Naval Kishore was a natural heir of Punni and, under normal succession, half of her 1/5 share in the estate. Yet, the Will nt, a this, Naval Kishore not only did not challenge the that the Will had been executed by TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 17. This is a very material circumstance because it demonstrates that the son of the testatrix, dispute its genuineness. casting suspicion on the Will, the instrument lends support to the case of the fabricated to the detriment of Naval Kishore, he would have to object, but he did not. Inst case of the appellant and The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of actual caregiving 18. One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was an apparent contradiction between a rendered certain services to the actually the testatrix had been served by Court treated this contradiction as undermining 19. This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be carefully separated. whom she chooses, and reasons of companionship or disposition. The fact that the testatrix person at some period does not legally preclude her from another relative proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the instrument itself. 2018 (O&M) This is a very material circumstance because it demonstrates that testatrix, who would have lost a direct share under the Will did not dispute its genuineness. On the contrary, he supported it in his testimony. Far from casting suspicion on the Will, the involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the rument lends support to the case of the propounder. If the Will had been fabricated to the detriment of Naval Kishore, he would have to object, but he did not. Instead, he confirmed its execution, ellant and goes to support its genuineness. The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of caregiving One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was contradiction between a recital in the Will that the appellant had rendered certain services to the testatrix and the oral evidence which suggested that actually the testatrix had been served by her son, Naval Kishore. The Appellate Court treated this contradiction as undermining credibility This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be carefully separated. First, a testator has complete freedom to bequeath property to whom she chooses, and gratitude for services rendered many years earlier or reasons of companionship or preference can lawfully be a motive for testamentary disposition. The fact that the testatrix may have received more care from one person at some period does not legally preclude her from another relative. The law does not require the testatrix to distribute property proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the itself. -9- This is a very material circumstance because it demonstrates that even who would have lost a direct share under the Will did not On the contrary, he supported it in his testimony. Far from involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the propounder. If the Will had been fabricated to the detriment of Naval Kishore, he would have been the first person ead, he confirmed its execution, which strengthens the goes to support its genuineness. The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was recital in the Will that the appellant had testatrix and the oral evidence which suggested that her son, Naval Kishore. The Appellate credibility of the Will. This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be First, a testator has complete freedom to bequeath property to gratitude for services rendered many years earlier or preference can lawfully be a motive for testamentary may have received more care from one person at some period does not legally preclude her from choosing to benefit . The law does not require the testatrix to distribute property proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the - even who would have lost a direct share under the Will did not On the contrary, he supported it in his testimony. Far from involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the propounder. If the Will had been been the first person which strengthens the The recital of services rendered to the testatrix by appellant and the evidence of One of the primary grounds relied upon by the Appellate Court was recital in the Will that the appellant had testatrix and the oral evidence which suggested that her son, Naval Kishore. The Appellate This raises two distinct legal and factual points which must be First, a testator has complete freedom to bequeath property to gratitude for services rendered many years earlier or for preference can lawfully be a motive for testamentary may have received more care from one choosing to benefit . The law does not require the testatrix to distribute property in proportion to services rendered nor to explain every motivation in detail in the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 20. For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the contemporaneous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of forgery. Delay between date of Will (17.12.1995) and mutation (24.07.2006) 21. The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of time i.e. approximately eleven years, which mutation was delay in producing a Will may be no plausible explanation for the delay and production at a later date improbable. But caution is required. 22. There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of revenue record for Power of Attorney 2006. The Power of Attorney mutation may have been delayed often consume years. The additional proof that the Will was not suffice to persuade the Court that the Will is Cancellation of the Power of Attorney (03.01.2011) and conduct after mu 23. The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P which facilitated (Ex.P-4), and argues that such documents were procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself prove that a testamentary 2018 (O&M) For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the eous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of Delay between date of Will (17.12.1995) and mutation (24.07.2006) The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of i.e. approximately eleven years, between the date of the Will and the date on which mutation was sanctioned on its basis. Undoubtedly delay in producing a Will may be suspicious, particularly if the propounder offers no plausible explanation for the delay and production at a later date improbable. But caution is required. There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of revenue record for many years. In the present case Power of Attorney (Ex.P-3) was executed in 2002 and that mutation Power of Attorney route itself provides a plausible explanation for why have been delayed, administrative steps followed by revenue action often consume years. The mere numerical gap between 1995 and 2006, without additional proof that the Will was fabricated during the intervening period, does not suffice to persuade the Court that the Will is Cancellation of the Power of Attorney (03.01.2011) and conduct after mu The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P which facilitated mutation was subsequently cancelled by a deed dated 03.01.2011 4), and argues that such cancellation supports a conclusion that initial re procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself prove that a testamentary document executed earlier was forged. The cancellation -10- For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the eous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of Delay between date of Will (17.12.1995) and mutation (24.07.2006) The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of between the date of the Will and the date on sanctioned on its basis. Undoubtedly, an unexplained long suspicious, particularly if the propounder offers no plausible explanation for the delay and contemporaneous events make production at a later date improbable. But caution is required. There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of In the present case, the record shows that a General 3) was executed in 2002 and that mutation occurred in route itself provides a plausible explanation for why administrative steps followed by revenue action numerical gap between 1995 and 2006, without fabricated during the intervening period, does not suffice to persuade the Court that the Will is false. Cancellation of the Power of Attorney (03.01.2011) and conduct after mutation The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P mutation was subsequently cancelled by a deed dated 03.01.2011 cancellation supports a conclusion that initial re procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself document executed earlier was forged. The cancellation - For these reasons the alleged inconsistency between the recital and the eous caregiving evidence cannot be treated as a decisive indicator of The Appellate Court attached particular importance to the lapse of between the date of the Will and the date on an unexplained long suspicious, particularly if the propounder offers raneous events make There are many legitimate reasons why a Will may remain out of eneral occurred in route itself provides a plausible explanation for why administrative steps followed by revenue action numerical gap between 1995 and 2006, without fabricated during the intervening period, does tation The plaintiff relies upon the fact that the Power of Attorney (Ex.P-3) mutation was subsequently cancelled by a deed dated 03.01.2011 cancellation supports a conclusion that initial re procured by fraud. Cancellation of an instrument does not by itself document executed earlier was forged. The cancellation TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 proves that a dispute arose between unsurprising in intra Credibility and evidentiary weight of attestations (DW 24. The decisive evidentiary element in favour of testimony of two attesting witnesses DW Lubhaya). The Trial entitled to re-appreciate the evidence, but to overturn concurrent factual the trial court, its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was manifestly contrary 25. On re both DW-2 and acknowledged the contents to be correct and they signed as witnesses. There is no direct that these witnesses lied, forensic evidence to disprove their testimony. Where the party alleg fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony must be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be impugned as perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative evidence. Cumulative assessment of suspicious circumstances 26. The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances cumulatively. Where court may rightly decline to accept a however, the so status, typing by 2018 (O&M) proves that a dispute arose between parties later, unsurprising in intra-family property matters. Credibility and evidentiary weight of attestations (DW The decisive evidentiary element in favour of testimony of two attesting witnesses DW-2 ( Lubhaya). The Trial Court accepted their evidence. The First appreciate the evidence, but to overturn concurrent factual its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was manifestly contrary to the materials on record or vitiated by legal error. On re-reading the materials of the attesting witnesses 2 and DW-4 gave consistent accounts. T acknowledged the contents to be correct and put her thum and they signed as witnesses. There is no direct that these witnesses lied, indeed the plaintiff produced no forensic evidence to disprove their testimony. Where the party alleg fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative Cumulative assessment of suspicious circumstances The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances cumulatively. Where numerous independent indicia of fabrication converge, a court may rightly decline to accept a Will despite attesting evidence. In this case, however, the so-called suspicious circumstances status, typing by son of testatrix, the recital about services, -11- parties later, the existence of a dispute is Credibility and evidentiary weight of attestations (DW-2 and DW-4) The decisive evidentiary element in favour of the Will rests on the 2 (Dalip Singh) and DW-4 (Ram Court accepted their evidence. The First Appellate Court was appreciate the evidence, but to overturn concurrent factual findings of its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was to the materials on record or vitiated by legal error. reading the materials of the attesting witnesses, one finds that 4 gave consistent accounts. They stated that Punni and put her thumb impression before them and they signed as witnesses. There is no direct evidence in the record showing indeed the plaintiff produced no independent witness or forensic evidence to disprove their testimony. Where the party alleging forgery fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative Cumulative assessment of suspicious circumstances The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances numerous independent indicia of fabrication converge, a Will despite attesting evidence. In this case, called suspicious circumstances i.e absence of age, unregistered , the recital about services, delay in mutation, and - the existence of a dispute is rests on the 4 (Ram Appellate Court was findings of its conclusion must demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was one finds that hey stated that Punni b impression before them owing independent witness or forgery fails to produce contradictory credible evidence, the attesting witnesses’ testimony be afforded weight. The Trial Court’s acceptance of their evidence cannot be perverse when the record otherwise shows no cogent negative The law instructs courts to examine suspicious circumstances numerous independent indicia of fabrication converge, a Will despite attesting evidence. In this case, absence of age, unregistered delay in mutation, and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 subsequent cancellation of constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s acceptance of attesting witnesses. cogent counter-evidence. On the whole clarity as to outweigh the positive testimony of DW Court’s findings Burden and standard of proof 27. It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on the propounder. the receiving party asserting fabrication or fraud. Mere assertions and are insufficient. The plaintiff here failed to contemporaneous documents, handwriting or forensic witness testimony contradicting the attesting witnesses which material in proving forgery. The Trial Court evidence of the propounders as legally sufficient. CONCLUSION 28. On the basis of the evidence on record, the careful re attesting evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following findings are recorded: (i) by two witnesses whose Trial Court. That evidence satisfied the requirement of attesting witnesses as contemplated by Section 63 of Act. The Trial 2018 (O&M) subsequent cancellation of Power of Attorney constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s attesting witnesses. The central evidence evidence. On the whole, the suspicions clarity as to outweigh the positive testimony of DW findings. Burden and standard of proof It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on the propounder. If the propounder proves the Will by attesting witness testimony, the receiving party asserting forgery must discharge a burden of proof to show fabrication or fraud. Mere assertions and inferences drawn from peripheral facts are insufficient. The plaintiff here failed to lead contemporaneous documents, handwriting or forensic witness testimony contradicting the attesting witnesses which material in proving forgery. The Trial Court evidence of the propounders as legally sufficient. CONCLUSION On the basis of the evidence on record, the careful re evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following recorded: The Will dated 17.12.1995 (Ex.D by two witnesses whose testimony was heard and accepted by the Trial Court. That evidence satisfied the requirement of attesting witnesses as contemplated by Section 63 of Act. The Trial Court’s acceptance of DW -12- ney when analysed in detail, do not constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s he central evidence remains unrefuted by the suspicions are not of such strength or clarity as to outweigh the positive testimony of DW-2 and DW-4 and the Trial It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on proves the Will by attesting witness testimony, forgery must discharge a burden of proof to show inferences drawn from peripheral facts independent evidence, for example contemporaneous documents, handwriting or forensic evidence, or independent witness testimony contradicting the attesting witnesses which would have been material in proving forgery. The Trial Court, therefore, correctly treated the evidence of the propounders as legally sufficient. On the basis of the evidence on record, the careful re-examination of evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following 7.12.1995 (Ex.D-2) was produced and attested testimony was heard and accepted by the Trial Court. That evidence satisfied the requirement of proof by attesting witnesses as contemplated by Section 63 of the Evidence Court’s acceptance of DW-2 and DW-4’s testimony - when analysed in detail, do not constitute a sufficiently tight or compelling cluster to upset the Trial Court’s remains unrefuted by of such strength or the Trial It must be reiterated that the primary burden to prove the Will rests on proves the Will by attesting witness testimony, forgery must discharge a burden of proof to show inferences drawn from peripheral facts for example evidence, or independent would have been correctly treated the examination of evidence, and the detailed analysis of each circumstance, the following 2) was produced and attested testimony was heard and accepted by the proof by the Evidence 4’s testimony TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 was not shown to be perverse or vitiated by a evidence. (ii) (such as absence of the specified) are not legally decisive. There is no legal age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, if any, are fabrication, inval (iii) create direct share in the from casting in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. Had the to object. Therefore, typing/description of the no suspicion regarding the genuineness of the instrument. (iv) the appellant, when have been served by her son, Naval Kishore, the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary dispositions in personal preference, past services, or does not establish that the (v) mutation, and the subsequent 2018 (O&M) was not shown to be perverse or vitiated by a evidence. (ii) The arguments based on peripheral omissions in the instrument (such as absence of the testatrix’s specified) are not legally decisive. There is no legal age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, if any, are minor and do not, without additional direct evidence of fabrication, invalidate a duly attested Will. (iii) The involvement of the heir in preparing the will shall factually create a possibility of self-interest. But in this case, the son lost a direct share in the Will despite being from casting the suspicion of Will, the involvement of Naval in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. Had the Will been fabricated, the heir should have been the first one to object. Therefore, typing/description of the no suspicion regarding the genuineness of the instrument. (iv) The recital in the Will describing services allegedly rendered by the appellant, when contrasted with evidence that the testatrix may have been served by her son, Naval Kishore, the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary dispositions in favour of any person for reasons of gratitude, choice or personal preference, past services, or does not establish that the recital was a deliberate falsehood The delay between the date of the Will and the sanctioning of mutation, and the subsequent cancellation of a power of attorney, are -13- was not shown to be perverse or vitiated by a misappreciation of The arguments based on peripheral omissions in the instrument testatrix’s age or the particular thumb specified) are not legally decisive. There is no legal requirement that age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, minor and do not, without additional direct evidence of idate a duly attested Will. involvement of the heir in preparing the will shall factually interest. But in this case, the son lost a despite being the one preparing it. Thus, far ill, the involvement of Naval Kishore in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. fabricated, the heir should have been the first one to object. Therefore, typing/description of the Will by the son creates no suspicion regarding the genuineness of the instrument. The recital in the Will describing services allegedly rendered by contrasted with evidence that the testatrix may have been served by her son, Naval Kishore, does not in law render the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary favour of any person for reasons of gratitude, choice or personal preference, past services, or other considerations. The record recital was a deliberate falsehood. The delay between the date of the Will and the sanctioning of cancellation of a power of attorney, are - misappreciation of The arguments based on peripheral omissions in the instrument age or the particular thumb requirement that age must be recorded or that registration is mandatory. Such defects, minor and do not, without additional direct evidence of involvement of the heir in preparing the will shall factually interest. But in this case, the son lost a the one preparing it. Thus, far Kishore in typing the instruction lends support to the case of the propounder. fabricated, the heir should have been the first one e son creates The recital in the Will describing services allegedly rendered by contrasted with evidence that the testatrix may does not in law render the Will invalid. A testatrix may lawfully make testamentary favour of any person for reasons of gratitude, choice or other considerations. The record The delay between the date of the Will and the sanctioning of cancellation of a power of attorney, are TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5252-2018 facts that require explanation but are not, on this record, fabrication (vi) identified by the Appellate matrix before Trial Court’s acceptance of the Will. 29. In view of the above, the present Judgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are hereby set aside. Court dismissing the plaintiff’s No.3198 sanctioned in favour of the appellant stands proved Will (Ex.D dismissed. 30. Pending application(s), if any, a September 16, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2018 (O&M) facts that require explanation but are not, on this record, fabrication. (vi) For all these reasons, the cluster of suspicious circumstances identified by the Appellate Court does not, in the particular factual matrix before this Court, attain the necessary cogency to Trial Court’s acceptance of the Will. In view of the above, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. udgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are set aside. The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit are restored. In consequence, Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of the appellant stands proved Will (Ex.D-2). The plaintiff’s claim for declaration and injunction is Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes. -14- facts that require explanation but are not, on this record, evidence of For all these reasons, the cluster of suspicious circumstances Court does not, in the particular factual , attain the necessary cogency to overturn the Trial Court’s acceptance of the Will. Regular Second Appeal is allowed. udgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Trial suit are restored. In consequence, Mutation No.3198 sanctioned in favour of the appellant stands held valid on the basis of the The plaintiff’s claim for declaration and injunction is lso stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking - evidence of For all these reasons, the cluster of suspicious circumstances Court does not, in the particular factual overturn the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. udgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court are The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Trial suit are restored. In consequence, Mutation held valid on the basis of the The plaintiff’s claim for declaration and injunction is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document