Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Milkman as Scribe Raises Eyebrows: High Court Dismisses Property Claim Over Suspicious Will

05 February 2025 4:58 PM

By: sayum


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a property ownership claim based on a disputed will. The court, led by Justice Alka Sarin, upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, both of which had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit on the grounds of suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged will. The judgment underscores the critical need for clear and convincing evidence in cases involving testamentary dispositions.

The dispute revolves around a piece of land left behind by Sukhraj Singh, who passed away on August 7, 2009. The plaintiff, Sukhdev Kaur, is the mother of the deceased and sought a declaration that she was the exclusive owner of the land based on a will purportedly executed by her son on April 12, 2009. The defendant, Jasvir Kaur, is the widow of the deceased and contested the authenticity of the will, claiming it was a forgery. The plaintiff alternatively sought joint possession of the property and a permanent injunction against the defendant, who had already mutated the land in both her name and the plaintiff's.

The High Court found multiple suspicious circumstances that cast doubt on the validity of the will. The scribe of the will, a milkman with only a primary education, was unfamiliar with the testator, a graduate, which the court found implausible. Furthermore, the witnesses to the will were closely related to the plaintiff, raising further suspicion. The court also noted that the will was not produced for two years after the testator's death, and it was not registered, despite the significant nature of the property involved.

"The Will (Ex.P1) did not see the light of the day for two years after the death of the Testator," Justice Sarin observed, adding that the non-registration of the will and the exclusion of the defendant, despite her close relationship with the deceased, further weakened the plaintiff's case.

The court emphasized the importance of removing any legitimate suspicions surrounding a will before it can be accepted as valid. Citing several Supreme Court precedents, Justice Sarin reiterated that the onus lies heavily on the propounder of the will to prove its authenticity, especially when it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

"In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant," the court remarked, quoting from the Supreme Court's decision in Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach towards testamentary disputes. By affirming the lower courts' findings, the judgment highlights the stringent requirements for proving a will, particularly in cases where the will's execution is questionable. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will rigorously scrutinize wills, especially when there are substantial reasons to suspect their authenticity.

Date of Decision: 26.07.2024

 

Latest Legal News