YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 contesng defendant No.1-Tara Singh (now appellant through his legal representaves), and proforma defendant Nos.2 to 5 (now respondent Nos.2 to 5 through their respecve legal representaves) are real siblings, being the children of Smt. Pahdi. Smt. Pahdi owned agricultural land in different villages situated in District Sirsa (Haryana) as well as District Bathinda (Punjab), details whereof were menoned in the headnote of the plaint. 4. Plainff’s Case : The plainff instuted the suit claiming possession of the suit property on the basis of inheritance by natural succession, asserng that all the pares, being children of Smt. Pahdi, were entled to equal shares. It was pleaded that defendant No.1–Tara Singh had set up a forged Will, allegedly executed by Smt. Pahdi in his favour. According to the plainff, Smt. Pahdi, being an octogenarian, was incapacitated to execute any Will and that the document in queson was the result of fraud and misrepresentaon. It was further alleged that defendant No.1, in collusion with the revenue authories, had succeeded in ge0ng mutaons sanconed in his favour on the basis of the said Will, which deserved to be ignored. Since the defendant failed to acknowledge the plainff’s claim despite requests, the suit was filed on 25.05.1985. 5. Defendant’s Stand : Contesng the suit, defendant No.1–Tara Singh asserted exclusive ownership of the suit property on the basis of a registered Will dated 11.01.1968, stated to have been duly scribed by Shri Kewal Krishan, Advocate, Bathinda, and a:ested by (i) Shri Tej Ram, resident of Bucho Mandi, (ii) Shri Ram, Municipal Commissioner, Bucho Mandi, and (iii) Jagannath, also resident of Bucho Mandi. It was pleaded that Smt. Pahdi was residing with defendant No.1 at Bucho Mandi at the me of execuon of the Will and that he was looking a>er her. An objecon of estoppel was also raised on the ground that neither the plainff nor the proforma defendants had ever challenged the mutaons sanconed on the basis of the Will by way of appeal. All allegaons of forgery, incapacity, and collusion with revenue authories were denied, and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Page 2 of 10 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 6. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 (proforma defendants) filed a joint wri:en statement admi0ng the claim of the plainff. 7. Trial Court Findings : Upon compleon of pleadings, necessary issues were framed. The pares led their respecve evidence. Upon appreciaon thereof, the learned Trial Court held that the Will dated 11.01.1968 (Ex.D1) stood duly proved in accordance with law and that none of the suspicious circumstances alleged by the plainff were established. Consequently, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.12.1989. 8. Appellate Court’s Findings : The First Appellate Court, however, accepted the appeal preferred by the plainff and reversed the findings of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court discarded the Will primarily on the grounds that the thumb impressions of Smt. Pahdi on the Will were not proved; that Tara Singh, being a Kanungo/Patwari, could manipulate the execuon of the Will by producing an impersonator; that Tej Ram was not an a:esng witness as per his tesmony and thus, none of the a:esng witnesses had been examined; that the scribe, Shri Kewal Krishan, Advocate, was not a regular deed writer and did not personally know Smt. Pahdi; that the Will was not registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar but at the house of Tara Singh, without proof of any applicaon under Secons 38 and 40 of the Registraon Act; and that the Will excluded other natural heirs without any evidence of special love or affecon in favour of defendant No.1. On these premises, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 28.05.1990. 9.1 Contenons of Appellant : Assailing the said judgment of reversal, learned counsel for the appellant–defendant No.1 has contended that the First Appellate Court mis-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and recorded conjectural findings. 9.2 Drawing a:enon to the registered Will (Ex.D1), it is submi:ed that the document bears signatures of three a:esng witnesses, namely Tej Ram and Shri Ram in Urdu, and Jagannath in English. Parcular emphasis has been laid on the tesmony of DW4–Tej Ram, an a:esng witness, who YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 proved the due execuon and registraon of the Will and idenfied his signatures thereon. It is argued that the Appellate Court’s observaon that DW4 had denied a:estaon is demonstrably contrary to the record. 9.3 It is further submi:ed that the finding that DW3–Kewal Krishan, Advocate, did not know Smt. Pahdi is also erroneous. Reference has been made to his deposion stang that he had gone to the residence of Smt. Pahdi and had scribed the Will at her instance. A:enon is also drawn to the cross-examinaon, wherein suggesons were put to him regarding the thumb impressions having not been affixed in the presence of witnesses, which, according to learned counsel, amounts to an admission that the thumb impressions on the Will were indeed those of Smt. Pahdi. It is contended that no suggeson of impersonaon was ever put to the witness, thereby negang the speculave inference drawn by the Appellate Court. 9.4 Learned counsel has next addressed the reasoning relang to registraon of the Will at the residence of Smt. Pahdi. Referring to Secon 38 of the Registraon Act, it is contended that persons suffering from bodily infirmity are exempted from appearing before the Sub-Registrar and the registering authority is empowered to visit such person. Reliance is placed on the tesmonies of DW1 and DW2, officials from the office of the Sub- Registrar. DW2–Sharwan Singh Sodhi, Registraon Clerk, deposed that the Will was registered by the then Sub-Registrar, Sardar Jaswant Singh (since deceased), at the house of Smt. Pahdi a>er reading over and explaining the contents to her, wherea>er she admi:ed the same and affixed her thumb impression. He also proved the endorsement Ex.D2. It is argued that inability of the witness to state as to who moved the applicaon for presence of Sub- Registrar at the residence of testator, does not viate the lawful registraon. 9.5 It is next contended that the observaon of the Appellate Court that Tara Singh manipulated the enre process on account of his official posion is also conjectural. It is submi:ed that Tara Singh had ceased to be in government service much prior to execuon of the Will and had shi>ed his YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 occupaon to commission agency, a fact proved through DW5–Amarjit Singh, whose tesmony remained unrebu:ed in this regard. 9.6 It is further argued that exclusion of other heirs does not by itself constute a suspicious circumstance, parcularly when the property was self-acquired. 9.7. The last submission is regarding delay and acquiescence, contending that the Will was executed on 11.01.1968 and the testator expired more than five years therea>er without revoking it. Mutaons were sanconed between 1974 and 1985, yet no challenge was raised within limitaon, which, according to learned counsel, estops the plainff from quesoning the Will belatedly. 9.8 In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed upon Ved Mitra Verma v. Dharam Deo Verma, 2014 (15) SCC 578; Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal, 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 249; Brij Nath Chaudhary v. Dilip Kumar & Ors., 2001 (9) SCC 316; Bant Singh & Anr. v. Didar Singh & Ors., 2018 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 799; Kashmir Singh v. Bheero, 2025 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 455; Ishwar v. Sonu, 2025 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 330; and Smt. Padmawa & Ors. v. Smt. Vidya Wa, Law Finder Doc Id #164642. 10. Contenons of Contesng Respondent : Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–plainff has supported the impugned judgment, contending that the First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence and found the Will to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances, warranng its rejecon. It is urged that there is no need of any interference in the second appeal by the High Court. 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the pares at length and has carefully examined the enre record. 12. Substanal Queson of Law : Upon hearing learned counsel for the pares and on perusal of the record, this Court is sasfied that the present appeal involves the following substanal queson of law: YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 “Whether the learned First Appellate Court commi:ed a substanal error of law by reversing the well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court and discarding a duly proved and registered Will, by misreading material evidence, drawing conjectural inferences, and misapplying the provisions of Secons 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Secon 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Secons 38 and 40 of the Registraon Act, 1908?” 13. Consideraon and Findings : Having given thoughMul consideraon to the rival submissions of both the sides and having minutely examined the enre evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid substanal queson of law deserved to be answered in the affirmave and in favour of the appellant–defendant No.1 and that the judgment of the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside for the reasons recorded hereina>er. 14. At the outset, it is required to be noced that the present appeal arises out of reversal of a well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had the benefit of appreciang the oral and documentary evidence in detail and had returned a categorical finding that the Will dated 11.01.1968 (Ex.D1) stood duly proved in accordance with law and was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstance. Such a finding of fact could not have been reversed by the First Appellate Court except on cogent and legally sustainable grounds. 15. Proof of Will – Compliance with Statutory Requirements : The execuon and proof of a Will is governed by Secon 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Secon 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The propounder of the Will is required to establish that:
the testator executed the Will while in a sound disposing state of mind;
the Will was a:ested by at least two witnesses; and
at least one a:esng witness has been examined to prove execuon. Page 6 of 10 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 16. In the present case, the Will (Ex.D1) is a registered document and bears the thumb impression of Smt. Pahdi and signatures of three a:esng witnesses. DW4–Tej Ram, one of the a:esng witnesses, was examined and he categorically deposed about the execuon of the Will by Smt. Pahdi and idenfied his signatures thereon. His tesmony remained consistent and unshaken in cross-examinaon. 17. The observaon of the First Appellate Court that Tej Ram was not an a:esng witness, or that he had denied a:estaon is demonstrably contrary to the record. A perusal of his deposion shows that he affirmed his role as an a:esng witness and proved the execuon of the Will in accordance with law. Such a misreading of evidence viates the appellate findings. 18. Once the statutory requirement of Secon 68 of the Evidence Act stood sasfied by examinaon of one a:esng witness, the Will could not have been discarded merely on conjectures or surmises. 19. Tesmony of the Scribe : DW3–Kewal Krishan, Advocate, the scribe of the Will, supported its execuon and stated that the Will was scribed at the instance of Smt. Pahdi at her residence. The First Appellate Court discarded his tesmony on the ground that he was not a “regular scribe” and did not know the testator personally. 20. This reasoning is legally untenable. There is no requirement in law that a Will must be scribed by a licensed deed writer or that the scribe must have prior personal acquaintance with the testator. What is material is whether the execuon stands proved. The cross-examinaon of DW3 further reveals that no suggeson was put to him that some other woman had impersonated Smt. Pahdi. On the contrary, suggesons proceeded on the premise that Smt. Pahdi herself had affixed her thumb impressions, though allegedly not in the presence of witnesses. This clearly negaves the theory of impersonaon subsequently conjectured by the First Appellate Court. Page 7 of 10 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 21. Registraon of Will at Residence – Secons 38 and 40 of the Registraon Act, 1908 read as under : “38. Persons exempt from appearance at registraon-office.—(1) (a) A person who by reason of bodily infirmity is unable without risk or serious inconvenience to appear at the registraon-office, or (b) a person in jail under civil or criminal process, or (c) person exempt by law from personal appearance in Court, and who would but for the provisions next hereina>er contained be required to appear in person at the registraon-office, shall not be required so to appear. (2) In the case of every such person the registering officer shall either himself go to the house of such person, or to the jail in which he is confined, and examine him or issue a commission for his examinaon. 40. Persons entled to present wills and authories to adopt.—(1) The testator, or a>er his death any person claiming as executor or otherwise under a will, may present it to any Registrar or Sub-Registrar for registraon. (2) The donor, or a>er his death the done, of any authority to adopt, or the adopve son, may present it to any Registrar or Sub-Registrar for registraon.” 22. The finding of the appellate court that registraon of the Will at the residence of Smt. Pahdi was suspicious is clearly unsustainable. Secon 38 of the Registraon Act expressly permits registraon at the residence of a person who, due to bodily infirmity, is unable to a:end the Sub-Registrar’s office, as also held in Smt. Padmawa v. Smt. Vidya Wa (supra). 23. Smt. Pahdi was 80 years of age at the me of execuon of Will. This fact is duly menoned in the Will. Even the Plainff claims the age of testator to be about 90 years. DW2–Sharwan Singh Sodhi, Registraon Clerk, proved that the Sub-Registrar personally visited the residence of Smt. Pahdi, read over and explained the Will to her, obtained her admission, and registered the document. He also proved the official endorsement (Ex.D2). Page 8 of 10 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 The mere inability of the witness to state as to who moved the applicaon does not invalidate the registraon, parcularly when the statutory procedure stood complied with. 24. The First Appellate Court thus erred in holding the registraon to be illegal by misapplying Secons 38 and 40 of the Registraon Act. 25. Alleged Manipulaon by Defendant No.1 : The observaon that defendant No.1 could manipulate the enre process because he was a Patwari/Kanungo is wholly conjectural. Evidence on record establishes that Tara Singh had rered from service much prior to the execuon of the Will and had shi>ed to a private business. The tesmony of DW5–Amarjit Singh in this regard remained unrebu:ed. A finding based on suspicion rather than proof cannot displace a duly proved registered Will. 26. Exclusion of Other Heirs – Not a Suspicious Circumstance : The First Appellate Court further treated exclusion of other natural heirs as a suspicious circumstance. This approach runs contrary to se:led law. Where the property is self-acquired, the testator has absolute freedom to dispose of the same in any manner. Mere exclusion of some heirs does not render a Will suspicious. 27. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ved Mitra Verma v. Dharam Deo Verma (supra) has categorically held that preference to one heir to the exclusion of others does not by itself constute a suspicious circumstance. Similar views have been reiterated in Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal (supra) and Bant Singh v. Didar Singh (supra). 28. Delay, Acquiescence and Limitaon : The Will was executed on 11.01.1968. Smt. Pahdi lived for more than five years therea>er, as she died in October, 1973. and never revoked it. A>er her death in 1973, mutaons of land in respect of two villages were sanconed between 1974 and 1975 and carried forward in subsequent revenue record. The plainff was fully aware of the Will and its implementaon in revenue records but chose to file the suit only in 1985. Such prolonged acquiescence reinforces the genuineness of YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.1673 of 1990 2026:PHHC:015977 the Will and weakens the belated challenge, as held in Kashmir Singh v. Bheero (supra). 29. Scope of Appellate Interference : The Trial Court had returned well-reasoned findings based on proper appreciaon of evidence. The First Appellate Court reversed those findings not on the basis of perversity or misapplicaon of law, but on conjectures, misreading of evidence, and legally unsustainable presumpons. Such reversal cannot be sustained. 30. Conclusion : In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the Will dated 11.01.1968 (Ex.D1) stood duly proved in accordance with Secons 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court suffer from material illegality and perversity. 31. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 28.05.1999 passed by the First Appellate Court are set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 04.12.1989 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit are restored. No order as to costs. February 04, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on: February 04, 2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document