Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Codicil is required to be proved like a Will and any suspicion regarding its due execution is to be dispelled by its pro-pounder." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment dated September 17, 2026, held that a codicil is subject to the same rigours of proof as a Will, and any "grave suspicion" surrounding its execution must be convincingly dispelled by the propounder.

A bench of Justice Parmod Goyal observed that where a party fails to assert rights under an alleged codicil for nearly two decades, especially during prior family settlements and arbitration proceedings, the document loses its credibility and cannot be relied upon to establish title.

The appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration seeking to invalidate a sale deed executed by respondent-defendant No.1 in 1982, claiming that the property in question was bequeathed to him via a codicil dated January 1, 1959, attached to his father’s 1957 Will. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant failed to produce the original codicil and that his conduct over two decades—including participation in family partitions and arbitration without ever mentioning the codicil—rendered the claim suspicious.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether the execution of the codicil dated January 1, 1959, was legally proved. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which held the codicil to be a suspicious and fabricated document, warranted interference in a Regular Second Appeal.

Standard of Proof for Codicils

The court reiterated that a codicil, being a testamentary instrument that modifies or revokes a Will, must be proved with the same high degree of evidentiary standard as a Will. The burden of proof lies heavily on the propounder to establish its genuineness, particularly when the document emerges after a significant lapse of time.

"Codicil is required to be proved like a Will and any suspicion regarding its due execution is to be dispelled by its pro-pounder," the court noted. The bench found that in the present case, the appellant failed to clear the "grave suspicion" that naturally arises when a document is kept hidden for 19 years while the parties litigate succession matters elsewhere.

Suspicious Delay and Conduct

The court highlighted several factors that militated against the authenticity of the document. The appellant participated in a formal family settlement in 1964 and arbitration proceedings before a family relative in 1967, yet he failed to produce or even mention the existence of the codicil during these critical junctures.

Court Highlights Failure to Assert Ownership

The bench further pointed out that the appellant remained a silent spectator while the respondent-defendant No.1 openly exercised ownership rights, including the induction of tenants and the collection of rent for nearly two decades. The court held that such conduct is inconsistent with the behavior of a genuine beneficiary, thereby reinforcing the suspicion that the codicil was a later fabrication.

"Failure of appellant-plaintiff to produce original Codicil and fact that he had not pressed his rights under the Codicil for 19 long years also raises grave suspicion regarding the existence and execution of Codicil by Hari Chand," the court observed.

Absence of Original Documents

The court was particularly critical of the fact that the original codicil was never produced, and the appellant attempted to rely on a photocopy. The court noted that the document appeared to be executed on a blank paper intended for an affidavit, a flaw that remained unexplained. The court concluded that when a document’s execution is shrouded in mystery and the propounder offers no cogent explanation for the delay or the suspicious nature of the paper used, the courts below are justified in rejecting the claim.

"Findings of facts recorded by learned Courts below is based upon evidence and therefore cannot be interfered by this Court in present regular second appeal," the court concluded. Finding no substantial question of law, the appeal was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2026