Madras High Court Dismisses ₹1842 Crores Recovery Claim by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation as Time-Barred and Unsubstantiated Entertainment Tax Must Be Refunded on Unsold Tickets – High Court of Kerala Mere Non-Return of Money and Quarrel Does Not Constitute Abetment to Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Karnataka High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Applies – Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned Without Evidence of Perversity: Gujarat High Court Consent Based on Deception is No Consent at All:  Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for Discharge in False Promise of Marriage Case Employer’s Failure to Provide Records Cannot Deny Pension Entitlement: Calcutta High Court Orders PF Authorities to Consider Service Period for Pension Calculation Murder Conviction Set Aside as 'Sudden Quarrel'—Bombay High Court Modifies Sentence to Culpable Homicide" No Title, No Injunction: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Baptist Church Land Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC Protects Husband from Rape Charges: Supreme Court Quashes FIR After Marriage Found to be Consensual Mere Presence in a Government Office Does Not Mean Incident Occurred in Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SCST A Typographical Error Cannot Alter Substantive Rights – Corrigendum Relates Back to the Original Notification: Rajasthan High Court Forfeiture of Earnest Money Must Be Reasonable, No Interest Payable If Buyer Cancels Due to Falling Property Prices: Supreme Court IBPS | Exam Bodies Must Provide Scribes and Extra Time to All Disabled Candidates, Not Just Those With Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements Do Not Discredit Their Reliability," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Case Suspicion, No Matter How Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Murder Case Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21 – Bail Granted Despite NDPS Act Restrictions: Kerala High Court Kolkata Book Fair Not a Public Function: Calcutta High Court Dismisses VHP's Writ Petition A Gift With Conditions is Not a Gift in Perpetuity – Violation of Purpose Mandates Reversion: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Demand Advocate in Domestic Enquiry Unless Employer’s Representative is a Legally Trained Mind: Bombay High Court Milkman as Scribe Raises Eyebrows: High Court Dismisses Property Claim Over Suspicious Will Contractor Bound by Contractual Terms, No Right to Claim Damages After Accepting Extensions: Supreme Court

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

04 February 2025 2:54 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

 

Similar News