Will Crumbles Under Law, But Son Can’t Inherit Either: Punjab & Haryana High Court Voids Testament Yet Denies HUF Claim Over Industrial Plot

“A Will Must Speak Through Witnesses – And This One Stayed Silent”, In a detailed and layered decision, Justice Harkesh Manuja of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  nullifying a registered Will dated 21.05.1997, yet rejecting the son’s plea of joint family ownership over the disputed industrial property in Chandigarh, marking a significant reaffirmation of both succession law and Hindu family property jurisprudence.

The Court declared the Will invalid, stating that it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the attesting witness Om Parkash failed to confirm whether the testator Vinod Kumar had signed in his presence.

Justice Manuja minced no words while concluding that:

“The attesting witness… even went on to state that Vinod Kumar-testator did not sign the Will in his presence. In such circumstances… the Will dated 21.05.1997… was not proved on record.”

The Court further noted that the Will surfaced only after two years of the testator’s death, describing it as a suspicious delay that further clouded its legitimacy.

“Affidavits Don’t Make A Family Firm”: Court Rejects Claim of Joint Hindu Family in Business Name Without Proof of Nucleus or Blending

Despite the collapse of the Will, the Court dealt a second blow to the son, Vijay Kumar, who had claimed ½ ownership in Plot No. 123, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, alleging that it was held in the name of a Joint Hindu Family firm, M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar, consisting of himself and his father.

But the Court found no such firm in law. “Mere recitals in affidavits do not establish the existence of a Joint Hindu Family firm,” said Justice Manuja, rejecting the argument that a business run under a shared name suffices to prove HUF ownership.

“While every Hindu family enjoys presumption of being joint, no such presumption attaches to a Hindu joint business,” the Court ruled, making it clear that HUF status cannot be assumed from business nomenclature or tax practices unless backed by evidence of a joint family nucleus or clear intent to blend property.

“Hindu Law Does Not Recognize Two People Forming a Family Business as HUF Firm”: Court Affirms That HUF Must Be Based on More Than Labels

The Court elaborated that even if a father and son are part of a joint family, they cannot create a Hindu Joint Family firm with legal standing simply by naming it so.

Quoting with authority from Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi (AIR 1962 SC 287), the Court reiterated:

“The law does not recognize some members of a joint family belonging to different branches, or even to a single branch, as a corporate unit. Any acquisition of property by such persons… would pass by inheritance and not by survivorship.”

The Court stressed that in order to treat the property as HUF property, there must be unmistakable evidence that the self-acquired property was thrown into the common hotchpot with an intention to abandon separate ownership.

“Not a single positive document annexed by the appellant… directly described him to be the proprietor of the concern,” Justice Manuja observed.

“No Hotchpot, No HUF”: Court Finds No Act of Blending, No Pleading Under Order VI Rule 4, No Right to Claim Joint Ownership

The Court also pointed out that even the procedural requirements under the Civil Procedure Code had not been satisfied by the appellant. It held that the absence of clear pleadings regarding when and how the property was allegedly thrown into the HUF hotchpot fatally weakened the claim.

“There are no specific averments in the plaint claiming that the property in question was thrown into the hotchpot of the family… thus, it cannot be regarded as joint family property.”

Citing Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax (AIR 1970 SC 1722), the Court emphasized that “the act by which a coparcener throws his separate property to the common stock is a unilateral act… by his individual volition he renounces his right in that property.”

In the absence of any clear volitional act, the claim of joint ownership was bound to fail.

“Even If It Were Joint Property, You Can’t Claim a Defined Share”: Court Clarifies that HUF Property Is Not Divided by Fractions

In a significant legal observation, the Court remarked that even if the property had been part of a Hindu Joint Family—which it was not—the claim to “½ share” was conceptually flawed.

“In a joint Hindu family business, no member of the family can say that he is the owner of one-half… The essence of joint Hindu family property is unity of ownership and community of interest,” said the Court, quoting Nanchand Gangaram Shetji v. Mallappa Mahalingappa Sadalge (1976) 2 SCC 429.

Thus, the claim itself contradicted the very nature of HUF ownership, which exists in undivided form until partition.

“Disputed Property Belonged Solely to Vinod Kumar”: Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Findings That Son Had No Ownership Document or Status

Despite Vijay Kumar’s claims of co-ownership, the Court found that every single record from the Estate Office — including the allotment letter, possession certificate, and conveyance deed — listed only Vinod Kumar as the sole proprietor.

Even a partnership deed submitted in 1962 in Estate Office records confirmed that Vinod Kumar was the sole proprietor of the concern.

“Onus was on the appellant to prove his claim of ownership… He has failed to discharge that burden,” held the Court, concurring with the trial and first appellate courts.

Will is Void, But So is the Inheritance Claim — Property Stays with Vinod Kumar’s Estate

Summing up, the High Court declared:

“The Will dated 21.05.1997 is held to be invalid and thus declared null and void. However, the property is held to be in the name of M/s Vinod Kumar Vijay Kumar through its sole proprietor Vinod Kumar. The appellant cannot be declared owner of ½ share.”

Thus, both Regular Second Appeals were disposed of, bringing a decisive end to the dual legal battles of succession and ownership—with both sides losing on separate fronts.

This judgment is a clear reiteration that succession law must be strictly complied with, and HUF claims cannot be manufactured through business titles or post-facto affidavits. While the Court showed no hesitation in nullifying a Will that failed the legal test, it equally refused to stretch Hindu law principles beyond recognition to accommodate emotional or presumptive claims.

As Justice Manuja’s ruling reminds:

“Inheritance flows through law, not through assumption; and property follows title, not sentiment.”

Date of Decision: 30 January 2026