Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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