Once the Thumb Impression Falls, the Will Falls: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Will Forged, Restores Equal Succession Rights of All Heirs

“A Will Surrounded by Suspicion and Founded on a Forged Thumb Impression Cannot Stand” — In a decisive reaffirmation of the evidentiary standards required to prove a testamentary document, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Will dated 08.08.1985 allegedly executed by Smt. Shanti Devi was forged, and declared mutation based on it to be void, thereby restoring the rightful inheritance of all eight natural heirs in equal shares.

Justice Deepak Gupta, delivering a detailed and reasoned verdict, upheld the first appellate court’s finding that the Will was not duly executed, relying heavily on an expert opinion which concluded that the thumb impression on the Will did not match the verified impressions of the deceased, and held that “the very execution of the Will by Smt. Shanti Devi collapses.”

Will Disbelieved, Natural Succession Upheld

The Court was dealing with a second appeal filed by Tulsi Dass, one of the sons of the deceased, challenging the judgment of the first appellate court which had set aside the trial court’s decree and allowed the suit of another son, Kishan Lal, declaring the Will to be invalid and ordering equal distribution of the property among all the children of the deceased.

The disputed Will, dated 08.08.1985, purported to leave all property of Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of three of her sons, excluding the others. The Will was unregistered and allegedly executed just two months before her death. Kishan Lal, who was excluded, challenged the Will as forged and fabricated, pointing out several suspicious circumstances, including a false recital about earlier allotment of land to the excluded heirs, and the fact that it was scribed by an inexperienced person.

The appellate court allowed the plaintiff to produce expert evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which ultimately became the turning point in the case.

Expert Testimony Proved Thumb Impression Was Forged

Justice Deepak Gupta accepted the conclusions drawn by the first appellate court based on the unrebutted opinion of a handwriting and fingerprint expert, Anil Kumar Gupta. The expert had compared the thumb impression on the Will with standard impressions authenticated from prior judicial records, specifically a civil suit filed earlier by Smt. Shanti Devi herself.

“The expert’s report (Ex.PW-4/1) clearly demonstrates that the thumb impression on Will Ex.D1 does not match Smt. Shanti Devi’s genuine impressions… The defendants did not controvert the existence of those thumb impressions nor led any rebuttal evidence. Hence, the Court finds no reason to doubt the expert opinion.”

Once the thumb impression on the Will was found not to belong to Smt. Shanti Devi, the very foundation of the Will collapsed, making it impossible to prove its execution in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

“Suspicious Circumstances Not Explained” — Court Reiterates Legal Standard for Wills

The High Court invoked well-established Supreme Court precedents, including H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, to reiterate that where a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the burden lies heavily on the propounder to explain and dispel them with convincing evidence.

“The propounder(s) of a Will must establish its due execution and attestation... and where suspicious circumstances exist, they must dispel them by cogent evidence.”

The Court found several glaring inconsistencies:

• The Will was written by an unknown and inexperienced scribe, DW-4, who had never authored a legal document before.
• The Will was not registered, despite Smt. Shanti Devi being alive for two months after its purported execution.
• The document contained false recitals, claiming that the excluded children had already received property — a claim not substantiated by any evidence.

“The non-registration of the Will, though not fatal in law, coupled with the above circumstances and the choice of an inexperienced scribe, adds weight to the conclusion that the document was not executed in the ordinary course.”

No Relinquishment Without Registered Instrument — First Appellate Court’s Error Partly Corrected

While the High Court upheld the conclusion that the Will was forged and the property must devolve through natural succession, it disagreed with the appellate court’s view that some of the siblings had “deemed to have relinquished” their share by merely supporting the Will in pleadings.

“Relinquishment of an existing share in immovable property cannot be inferred from conduct or pleadings... It must be effected by a registered document or a proven family arrangement.”

Finding that there was no such registered deed or valid family settlement, the Court held that all eight children of Smt. Shanti Devi were entitled to 1/8th share each in the suit property.

Will and Mutation Declared Invalid — Equal Succession Restored

The Court, while modifying the decree of the first appellate court, declared the Will dated 08.08.1985 and Mutation No.1648 dated 23.07.1986 as invalid and ineffective, and directed that the entire estate of Smt. Shanti Devi would devolve equally upon her eight children by the law of intestate succession.

“Upon the intestate death of Smt. Shanti Devi, all her eight children shall inherit the suit property in equal shares of 1/8th each.”

The appeal was disposed of without costs, and all pending applications were also closed.

This ruling not only emphasizes the importance of expert forensic evidence in testing the authenticity of a Will but also reasserts the statutory safeguards surrounding testamentary succession. It reinforces that mere attestation or production of a Will is not sufficient when the document itself is tainted by suspicion and forgery, and that succession law mandates strict compliance with evidentiary requirements.

The judgment is also a reminder that deemed relinquishment of property rights cannot arise by implication, and must be proved through registered instruments or cogent evidence of a lawful family arrangement.

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025