Mere Relationship Doesn’t Disqualify a Witness if Testimony is Credible: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules

High Court Overturns Lower Court Judgment, Validates Will and Awards Compensation to Second Wife

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the validity of a will executed by the late Balwant Singh in favor of his second wife, Shanta Kumari, thus entitling her to compensation for acquired land. The court’s decision reverses the earlier ruling of the Additional District Judge III, Rohtak, who had cast doubt on the authenticity of the will. Justice Anil Kshetarpal delivered the judgment, emphasizing the credibility of the attesting witnesses and dismissing allegations of forgery and undue influence raised by the respondents, Balwant Singh’s sons from his first marriage.

The case revolves around the entitlement to compensation for land measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas in Village Bohar, District Rohtak, which was acquired by the government. The dispute centered on a will dated January 10, 1985, allegedly executed by Balwant Singh in favor of his second wife, Shanta Kumari. The will was contested by Balwant Singh’s sons from his first marriage, Balraj and Vijender Singh, who claimed it was forged and executed under suspicious circumstances.

The High Court found no merit in the Reference Court’s dismissal of the attesting witness Ram Sarup’s testimony due to his close relationship with the appellant. “Ram Sarup is not a beneficiary of the will. His acquaintance with the testator and his family does not automatically disqualify his testimony,” the court noted. The witness had attested the will, fulfilling the requirements under Section 63© of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The court also addressed the Reference Court’s suspicion over the will bearing two signatures of the testator. “Signing multiple times on a single-page document is not unusual, especially when no evidence of tampering was provided,” Justice Kshetarpal remarked. The court clarified that the signatures were consistent, and the presence of multiple signatures did not invalidate the will.

The High Court emphasized that the burden of proving the will’s invalidity rested on the respondents. “Mere allegations without substantive evidence cannot suffice to nullify a duly executed and attested will,” the judgment stated. The respondents failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims of forgery or undue influence.

Justice Anil Kshetarpal remarked, “Mere relationship or acquaintance does not automatically disqualify a witness if their testimony is otherwise credible and substantiated by evidence.”

The High Court’s decision to uphold the validity of the will and award compensation to Shanta Kumari underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice based on credible evidence and proper legal standards. This judgment reaffirms the principle that mere allegations, without substantial proof, cannot undermine a duly executed will. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases, reinforcing the legal framework for adjudicating disputes over wills and inheritance.

Date of Decision: July 01, 2024

Shanta Kumari vs. Vijender Singh and others