Tenant Cannot Challenge the Will of Landowner, Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Karamjit Singh vs. Harbans Singh, dismissing a revision petition challenging the impleadment of Karamvir Singh as the legal representative of the deceased Harbans Singh. The dispute centered around the validity of a Will dated February 14, 2011, which was contested by Karamjit Singh on the grounds of suspicious circumstances. The court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court, recognizing Karamvir Singh as the legal representative and dismissing claims that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
The case originated from a suit filed by Harbans Singh, seeking the ejectment of Karamjit Singh from property located in SAS Nagar (Mohali). Harbans Singh passed away on April 12, 2021, while the case was pending appeal. Karamvir Singh, claiming to be the adopted son and beneficiary under the Will, sought impleadment as the legal representative to continue the case. The First Appellate Court allowed Karamvir Singh’s application, which led Karamjit Singh to file the present revision petition challenging that decision.
The core legal issue was whether Karamvir Singh was the rightful legal representative of Harbans Singh. The petition raised two main contentions:
Validity of the Will: The petitioner argued that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and failed to mention arrangements for Harbans Singh's wife.
Procedural Irregularity: The petitioner contended that the First Appellate Court should have remanded the issue to the Trial Court for evidence collection under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC.
The court dismissed allegations of suspicious circumstances, finding that the Will had been properly executed and proven in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court also noted that Harbans Singh had transferred significant portions of his property to Karamvir Singh while alive, further corroborating the intent behind the Will.
The petitioner’s objections—such as the absence of specific provisions for Harbans Singh’s wife and the vague language in the Will—were found to lack substance. The court reasoned that Harbans Singh’s pension sufficed for his wife's needs and that the Will was intended to secure Karamvir Singh’s rights as Harbans Singh’s adopted son, despite the lack of formal adoption documentation.
The petitioner’s claim that the First Appellate Court should have remanded the case to the Trial Court for evidence collection was also rejected. The court held that Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC grants discretionary power to appellate courts to either handle the matter themselves or refer it to a lower court. Since the First Appellate Court had already collected and considered sufficient evidence, no procedural irregularity was found.
The High Court concluded that the Will was valid and not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, Karamvir Singh was rightfully recognized as the legal representative of Harbans Singh, allowing him to pursue the ongoing civil appeal.

Date of Decision: September 3, 2024