Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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