Will Cannot Confer More Than the Testator’s Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Without Proof of Transfer, Property Devolves by Natural Succession - Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a judgment delivered on 13th February 2025, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a property inheritance dispute, ruling that a Will can only transfer what the testator legally owns. If no proof exists that the property was exclusively owned by the testator, succession must follow natural inheritance laws.

Justice Alka Sarin, dismissing Regular Second Appeal No. 977 of 2022 (O&M), ruled that "when a person executes a Will, they can only bequeath their own share of the property. If the property was never legally transferred to them, they cannot claim absolute ownership, and the heirs must inherit as per natural succession."

The dispute arose over a residential property in Fazilka, Punjab, originally owned by Harbans Lal, who was an employee of the Municipal Council, Fazilka. His daughter, Savitri Devi (the appellant), claimed absolute ownership of the house based on a Will executed by her mother, Kasturi Devi, on 25th January 2006.

The respondents, including another daughter, Meena Rani, contended that Harbans Lal had never transferred the property to Kasturi Devi during his lifetime. Since there was no sale deed, gift deed, or Will proving exclusive ownership by Kasturi Devi, the property legally devolved among all legal heirs after Harbans Lal’s death.

The trial court, in its judgment dated 17th July 2018, partially decreed the suit, holding that the appellant could claim only a 50% share—¼th inherited from her father and another ¼th through the Will from her mother. The first appellate court upheld this ruling on 16th March 2020.

The High Court found no reason to interfere, ruling that "succession laws operate automatically unless a legal document proves otherwise. In the absence of any evidence showing that Harbans Lal transferred the property to Kasturi Devi, she could not have bequeathed full ownership to the appellant."

Rejecting the appellant’s claim, the court held that "without proof of exclusive ownership, the Will only conveys the testator’s rightful share. The remaining share devolves according to inheritance laws."

Reaffirming that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises, the court ruled that "mere dissatisfaction with concurrent factual findings is not a valid ground for appeal. When both lower courts have applied settled legal principles correctly, a second appeal cannot be entertained."

Dismissing the appeal, the court concluded that "inheritance must follow legal ownership. The appellant’s claim to the entire property was baseless, as her mother could only transfer what she lawfully owned. The appeal, lacking merit, stands dismissed."

Date of Decision: 13 February 2025