A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“The judicial conscience must be satisfied beyond suspicion; mere registration of a Will does not wipe away doubts about its execution” — In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a registered Will, if surrounded by suspicious circumstances, cannot be relied upon to exclude other legal heirs. High Court dismissed the claim of a son who attempted to claim his late father’s entire share in ancestral property on the basis of a Will allegedly executed just a month before the testator’s death, restoring the Trial Court’s judgment that had refused to accept the document as legally proved.

Justice Nidhi Gupta, in her reportable judgment, reaffirmed the settled legal principle that registration alone does not prove the genuineness of a Will, especially when it is executed under suspicious conditions, kept secret for years, and attested by witnesses whose credibility is questionable.

“The Will was not only concealed from the authorities for four years but was also riddled with infirmities that the propounder failed to explain. In such cases, the law demands the removal of every legitimate doubt. That burden was never discharged,” the Court observed.

Son Produced Will Bequeathing Entire Property to Himself While Father Was Dying of Cancer

The dispute revolved around the validity of a registered Will dated 07.06.2005, allegedly executed by Sardara Singh, who died a month later on 12.07.2005. The Will gave Sardara Singh’s entire ¼ share in the ancestral property exclusively to one of his sons, Gurdeep Singh, leaving out his other children and grandchildren.

Gurdeep Singh had filed a suit for joint possession of half share in the property, relying on the Will. While the Trial Court rejected the Will as unproved, the First Appellate Court accepted it, granting Gurdeep Singh a share based on the Will and issuing an injunction against the other co-sharers.

In second appeal, Justice Nidhi Gupta reversed the appellate court’s decision, stating that the execution and attestation of the Will were enveloped in multiple suspicious circumstances, and the plaintiff had failed to produce cogent, consistent evidence to satisfy the Court’s conscience.

“Testator Was a Frail, Dying Man – Held Up by Others in the Photograph”: Court Questions Physical and Mental Capacity to Execute the Will

The High Court scrutinized the surrounding circumstances and found them disturbing. Sardara Singh was suffering from cancer and visibly weak at the time of the Will. The photograph annexed to the Will showed him being held up by others, indicating he was barely conscious or capable of autonomous decision-making.

Quoting the test of judicial satisfaction laid down in Gurdial Singh (Dead) through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1466), the Court held:

“The question is not whether the Will was registered or not. The question is whether the mind that made it was free, conscious, and capable of understanding the disposition. The answer here is clearly no.”

The Court emphasized that suspicion is inherent when a Will is executed days before death, excludes close family, and is not disclosed for years after death.

“Witness Did Not Know the Testator or His Family – Signed Because He Was Asked To”: Attesting Witness Found Unreliable

One of the most glaring issues was the testimony of PW1 – Tirath Singh, the attesting witness. The Court noted that Tirath Singh:

• Had no relationship with Sardara Singh
• Did not even know the number of his sons or daughters
• Signed the Will on the request of the other attesting witness, Harpal Singh
• Had his name inserted in handwriting, unlike the rest of the typed document

The other attesting witness, Harpal Singh, was not examined on the vague excuse that he had become “mental.” No medical record was provided to prove such incapacity, nor any timeline as to when he allegedly became unfit.

The Court observed:

“The evidence of attesting witnesses is central to proving a Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Here, the credibility of one is non-existent, and the other is not even produced. The entire attestation process is highly doubtful.”

Delay of Four Years in Producing the Will – “An Inexplicable Silence That Speaks Volumes”

Gurdeep Singh admitted that he received the Will 15 days before his father’s death, yet he never disclosed it during the mutation proceedings in 2008, or in any official forum until four years later. The Court called this a deliberate concealment and a critical piece of the suspicious circumstances.

“The silence for four years, in face of an alleged testamentary document, is not a lapse; it is a calculated omission. The irresistible inference is that the Will did not exist at the relevant time,” the Court held.

Even during the mutation proceedings, Gurdeep Singh made no mention of a Will, despite having the alleged document in his possession.

“Father Had Equal Love for All”: Plaintiff’s Own Testimony Contradicted the Will

Interestingly, Gurdeep Singh, in his own cross-examination, admitted that his father had equal affection for all children and that there were no disputes within the family. He also could not provide any reason as to why his siblings or their children were excluded from the Will.

This, according to the Court, further eroded the foundation of the Will:

“When the plaintiff himself admits to harmony and equality in the family, the exclusive bequest to him becomes deeply suspect. This is not a case where the testator was correcting a wrong or rewarding a devoted heir.”

“A Will Cannot Be Used to Fracture Co-ownership Without Proof”: Injunction Against Co-sharers Also Set Aside

The First Appellate Court had also granted a permanent injunction restraining the other co-sharers from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession or alienating the land. Justice Nidhi Gupta found this to be legally unsustainable, observing:

“A co-sharer cannot be injuncted from dealing with joint property unless partition has taken place. The appellate court completely misdirected itself on this point.”

Will Declared Legally Unproved, Plaintiff Limited to Share Under Inheritance Law

The High Court, restoring the decree of the Trial Court, held that:

• The Will dated 07.06.2005 was never proved in accordance with law
• The suspicious circumstances were grave and unanswered
• The plaintiff failed to satisfy the conscience of the Court
• The injunction order was illegal
• Gurdeep Singh would be entitled only to his legal share as per inheritance laws, not under the Will

The Court reiterated the long-settled law from Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, stating:

“Suspicion must be removed not by mere assertion, but by legal evidence which removes every legitimate doubt. In this case, the propounder has failed entirely.”

Date of Decision: October 28, 2025