RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 1

other connected appeals

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on 12

th

of September, 2025

Pronounced on 15

th

of September, 2025

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M)

Tarsem Singh ....Appellant

Versus

Nahar Singh through LRs Bhupinder Singh and another ...Respondents

RSA-3683-2015 (O&M)

Tarsem Singh .... Appellant

Versus

Baljeet Singh and another ...Respondents

RSA-3806-2015 (O&M)

Tarsem Singh .... Appellant

Versus

Nahar Singh through LRs Bhupinder Singh and another ...Respondents

RSA-3950-2015 (O&M)

Tarsem Singh .... Appellant

Versus

Baljeet Singh and another ...Respondents

RSA-5439-2018 (O&M)

Baljeet Singh .... Appellant

Versus

Tarsem Singh and another ...Respondents

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 2

other connected appeals

RSA-3608-2018 (O&M)

Baljeet Singh .... Appellant

Versus

Nahar Singh (now deceased) and another ...Respondents

RSA-3669-2018 (O&M)

Baljeet Singh .... Appellant

Versus

Nahar Singh (now deceased) and another ...Respondents

RSA-3979-2018 (O&M)

Baljeet Singh .... Appellant

Versus

Nahar Singh (now deceased) and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant(s) in RSA-3668-2015,

RSA-3683-2015, RSA-3806-2015 and RSA-3950-2015.

Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate and

Mr. Sidharth Grover, Advocate

for the appellant(s) in RSA-5439-2018,

RSA-3608-2018, RSA-3969-2018 & RSA-3979-2018 and

for respondent No.2 in RSA-3668-2015.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

These eight appeals arise out of dispute between the same

parties who were fighting for the estate left by Jeet Singh, who died

unmarried and issueless on 22.12.2001.

2. Nahar Singh filed Civil Suit No.721 of 23.01.2002 seeking

decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 3

other connected appeals

left by Jeet Singh son of Pohla Singh, claiming that Jeet Singh died intestate.

He claimed himself to be one of the agnates of Jeet Singh. As per Nahar

Singh, all the relatives of Jeet Singh predeceased him. Plaintiff is the only

person left related to him by blood. Nahar Singh challenged unregistered

WILL propounded by Baljeet Singh, dated 16.12.2001. As per Nahar Singh,

the WILL alleged to have been executed by Jeet Singh in favour of

defendant No.1, is a forged and fabricated document and is a nullity in the

eyes of law. He disputed mutation of inheritance of Jeet Singh on the basis

of unregistered WILL, dated 16.12.2001.

3. Defendant No.2 Tarsem Singh filed Civil Suit No.137 of

11.03.2004 claiming himself to be owner and entitled to possession of the

land left by Jeet Singh, on the basis of registered WILL dated 23.05.2000.

4. Both the suits were tried together. Suit filed by Nahar Singh

was dismissed. Suit filed by Tarsem Singh was decreed upholding registered

WILL dated 23.05.2000 propounded by Tarsem Singh. WILL propounded

by Baljeet Singh was disbelieved.

5. Four different appeals were filed against the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court. Two appeals were preferred by Nahar

Singh. Two separate appeals were preferred by Baljeet Singh.

6. Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the

Trial Court qua registered WILL dated 23.05.2000 and dismissed the suit

filed by Tarsem Singh. Version of Nahar Singh was also rejected holding

that Nahar Singh failed to prove his relationship with deceased Jeet Singh.

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 4

other connected appeals

The Lower Appellate Court disbelieved both the WILLs propounded by

Baljeet Singh and Tarsem Singh and at the same time rejected the claim of

Nahar Singh on the basis of natural succession and ordered that the estate

left by deceased Jeet Singh be estreached to the State.

7. Both, Nahar Singh as well as Tarsem Singh, have preferred four

appeals each. In view of above, all the eight appeals are being decided by a

common judgment as the lis is set up in the background of same questions of

fact and involves same question of law.

8. Since Baljeet Singh has not preferred any appeal against the

findings recorded by the Courts below and Courts below concurrently found

that the WILL propounded by him could not be proved, this Court does not

find any reason to interfere in the said findings. Findings recorded by the

Courts below regarding WILL dated 16.12.2001 are thus ordered to be

maintained.

9. The issues that require consideration of this Court are:

a) the validity of registered WILL dated 23.05.2000.

b) the right of Nahar Singh as agnate of deceased Jeet Singh.

10. In the considered opinion of this Court in case the WILL dated

23.05.2000 propounded by Tarsem Singh is held to be valid, right of Nahar

Singh will need no adjudication.

11. WILL dated 23.05.2000 is a registered WILL. Both the

attesting witnesses of the same namely Harbans Singh Lamberdar and

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 5

other connected appeals

Makhan Singh were examined as DW-10 and DW-11 respectively. Scribe of

the WILL, Vinod Kumar Goyal was examined as DW-12. Both the Courts

below have concurrently found that the execution of WILL stands proved by

the testimony of attesting witnesses and the scribe. The Lower Appellate

Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and disbelieved the

WILL, Exhibit D-19 holding the same to be surrounded by suspicious

circumstances.

12. Trite it is that propounder of the WILL is not only required to

prove execution of the WILL but is also required to dispel suspicious

circumstances if any.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of ‘Shivakumar and others vs.

Sharanabasppa and others’, (2021) 11 SCC 277 considered series of case

law to cull out the following principles to adjudicate upon the WILL:

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

1. Ordinarily, a will has to be proved like any other document; the

test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the

prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other

documents, in the case of will too, the proof with mathematical

accuracy is not to be insisted upon.

2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a will is required

to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one

attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its

execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of

giving evidence.

3. The unique feature of a will is that it speaks from the death of

the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 6

other connected appeals

deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed.

This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the

question as to whether the document propounded is the last will of

the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but

the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof

of the essential facts which go into the making of a will.

4. The case in which the execution of the will is surrounded by

suspicious circumstances stands on a different footing. The

presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on

the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances

attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to

suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions

before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.

5. If a person challenging the will alleges fabrication or alleges

fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the

execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but

even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances

surrounding the execution of the will may give rise to the doubt or

as to whether the will had indeed been executed by the testator

and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In

such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the

propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.

6. A circumstance is “suspicious” when it is not normal or is “not

normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a

normal person”. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must

be “real, germane and valid” and not merely the “fantasy of the

doubting mind”.

7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify

as “suspicious” would depend on the facts and circumstances of

each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain

mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust

exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependents; an

active or leading part in making of the will by the beneficiary

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 7

other connected appeals

thereunder et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give

rise to suspicion. The circumstances above-noted are only

illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any

circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to

legitimate suspicion about the execution of the will. On the other

hand, any of the circumstances qualifying as being suspicious

could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such

suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound

and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature

coupled with the proof of attestation.

8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into

operation when a document propounded as the will of the testator

is surrounded by suspicious circumstance(s). While applying such

test, the court would address itself to the solemn questions as to

whether the testator had signed the will while being aware of its

contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the

dispositions in the will?

9. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a will is

shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial

conscience of the court and the party which sets up the will has to

offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious

circumstances surrounding the will.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

14. Thus, a circumstance can be held to be suspicious only when it

is not normal. It means either the conduct of testator is not normal or the

covenant contained in WILL is abnormal or false.

15. Lower Appellate Court in the present case while enlisting

suspicious circumstances surrounding the WILL dated 23.05.2000, observed

as under:

“xxxx No doubt, Tarsem Singh has examined Harbans

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 8

other connected appeals

Singh namberdar (DW10) and Makhan Singh (DW11), who are

attesting witnesses, to prove due execution of the Will, as well as

Vinod Kumar Goyal (DW12), who is scribe of the impugned Will

Ex.D19, but this Will is also surrounded by suspicious

circumstances. Undisputedly, Tarsem Singh is not related to

deceased Jeet Singh in any manner. Tarsem Singh, while appearing

in the witness box as DW14, has taken the plea that he used to

serve deceased Jeet Singh during his life time till his death and the

deceased was treating him just like his real nephew, but there is not

an iota of evidence on the file that Tarsem Singh served Jeet Singh

during his life time. Not a single witness has been examined to

prove that Tarsem Singh used to take meals to the house of Jeet

Singh or Jeet Singh used to visit the house of Tarsem Singh to eat

his meals. When cross-examined, Tarsem Singh admitted that he is

having separate ration-card with his family members, including

mother, wife, son and daughter. He could very well examine any of

the female member of his house or son to say a single word that

they used to deliver packed meals to Jeet Singh at his residence or

the meals were being cooked at their home for Jeet Singh. It is not

the case of Tarsem Singh that he himself was cooking meals for

Jeet Singh during his life time by visiting his home or used to bring

the same from a Dhaba or a Hotel. Simply saying that he used to

serve the deceased during his life time is not sufficient to prove

that the Will was executed by deceased Jeet Singh in his favour out

of love and affection. Further, Tarsem Singh has taken the plea that

he was being treated as nephew by deceased Jeet Singh, but not

even a single witness has been examined to prove that he was

calling deceased Jeet Singh by saying him as chacha (uncle). The

contents of the Will also creates doubt regarding its genuineness. It

has been written in the Will that if any brother or sister will

claim/dispute this Will, they would have no right or interest in his

property (property of the testator). Admittedly, deceased Jeet Singh

died wifeless and issueless. He was having no brother or sister. The

other relatives i.e. parents, grandparents, etc, also predeceased him.

When the deceased was having no brother or sister, there was no

need to write in the Will with regard to claim of any brother or

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 9

other connected appeals

sister. This is one of the major suspicious circumstance creating

doubt with regard to genuineness of the Will. Admittedly, Tarsem

Singh was working as Peon in Cooperative Agriculture Services

Society, Sukhanand. Makhan Singh (DW11), one of the attesting

witness, was a member of the said Society, and Harbans Singh

namberdar (DW10), other attesting witness of Will, was admittedly

used to purchase fertilizers from the said Society. It appears that

being related to each other on account of members of the Society,

Tarsem Singh procured the Will in question in connivance with

Harbans Singh namberdar and Makhan Singh.xxx”

16. In the considered opinion of this Court, Lower Appellate Court

erred in holding that the WILL is surrounded by suspicious circumstance.

Absence of relationship between Tarsem Singh and Jeet Singh cannot be

held to be a suspicious circumstance. WILL, by its very nature is a departure

from natural succession. Privy Counsel in the case of ‘Motibai Harmusjee

vs. Jemsetjee Hormusjee’, AIR 1924 PC 28, observed as under:

“A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly; if he acts with full

comprehension of what he is doing, the Court will not interfere

with the exercise of his volition.”

17. Relying upon the afore-stated observations made by Privy

Council in Motibai Harmusjee’s case (supra), Supreme Court in Surendra

Pal v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora, (1974) 2 SCC 600 held that:

“It is not for us to fathom the motivations of a man. His actions

and reactions are unpredictable as they depend upon so many

circumstances. There is, however, always some dominant and

impelling circumstance which motivates a man's action though in

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 10

other connected appeals

some cases even a trivial and trifling cause impels him to act in a

particular way which a majority of others may not do. At times

psychological factors and the frame of mind in which he is, may

determine his action.”

18. Same view was followed by this Court in the case of

Smt. Rajeshwari Rani Pathak vs. Smt. Nirja Guleri and others, 1977

AIR (P&H) 123, wherein while dealing with the issue of suspicious

circumstance and the conscience of the Court, this Court observed as under:-

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

………In the final analysis, it is the conscience of the Court that

has to be satisfied and as such, the nature and quality of proof must

be commensurate with the requirement to satisfy that conscience.

The important question in each case is: What is the suspicion

which a reasonable man will entertain in the circumstances of a

case.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

19. Same sentiment was echoed in the case of ‘Swarnalatha and

others vs. Kalavathy and others’, 2022 AIR Supreme Court 1585

wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:-

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

25. The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the

execution of a Will is already well-settled and it needs no

reiteration. It is enough if we make a reference to one of the recent

decisions of this Court in Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta1

where this Court referred to almost all previous decisions right

from H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma2. But cases

in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either

the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of

the testator is questioned. This can be seen from the fact that

almost all previous decisions of this Court referred to in Kavita

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 11

other connected appeals

Kanwar (supra) list out circumstances, which in the context of the

lack of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator, became

suspicious circumstances. In the matter of appreciating the

genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court

to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and

equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14

to dispositions under a Will.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

20. Likewise, Tarsem Singh not being in knowledge of the name of

the mother of Jeet Singh hardly makes any difference. It has come on record

that Tarsem Singh as well as Jeet Singh were residents of same village.

Testator in WILL claimed that he is being taken care of by Tarsem Singh. It

stands proved that WILL was validly executed by Jeet Singh as per Section

63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Tarsem Singh is merely working

as a Peon in the Cooperative Society. There is no plea raised by Nahar

Singh that the WILL propounded by Tarsem Singh is forged and fabricated.

There is no evidence to suggest that Jeet Singh, at the time of execution of

WILL dated 23.05.2000, was incapacitated in any manner. None of the

circumstances enlisted by the Lower Appellate Court to dislodge the WILL,

cannot be said to be such that would fall within the category of ‘suspicious

circumstance’.

21. In view thereof, this Court finds the circumstances recorded by

the Lower Appellate Court to be suspicious and strong enough to dislodge

the registered WILL in favour of Tarsem Singh which otherwise stands

proved in terms of Section 63(c) of the 1925 Act, cannot be held to be

suspicious in terms of ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 12

other connected appeals

Shivakumar’s case (supra).

22. Execution of the WILL having been proved and there being no

circumstance that exhibits the testator acted in a manner which is not worthy

of a prudent man, this Court finds that the Lower Appellate Court erred in

dislodging the WILL spelling out certain circumstances as suspicious merely

on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

23.

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 13

other connected appeals

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 14

other connected appeals

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 15

other connected appeals

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 16

other connected appeals

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 17

other connected appeals

26. In view of above, this Court finds that the findings recorded by

the Lower Appellate Court on the Issue of WILL dated 23.05.2000

propounded by Tarsem Singh, cannot be sustained and the same need to be

RSA-3668-2015 (O&M) and 18

other connected appeals

reversed restoring the findings recorded by the Court of the First Instance.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Jeet Singh executed valid WILL dated

23.05.2000 in favour of Tarsem Singh. Accordingly, suit filed by Tarsem

Singh bearing Civil Suit No.137 of 11.03.2004 is ordered to be decreed.

Keeping in view that the WILL propounded by Tarsem Singh has been

upheld, this Court does not find any reason to go into the issue regarding

status of Nahar Singh as one of the agnates of late Jeet Singh.

27. In view of above, suit filed by Nahar Singh bearing Civil Suit

No.721 of 23.01.2002, is ordered to be dismissed.

28. As a sequel of the discussion, held herein-above, RSA

Nos.3668, 3683, 3806 and 3950 of 2015, are allowed. RSA Nos.5439,

3608, 3969 and 3979 of 2018, are ordered to be dismissed.

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

30. A copy of this order be kept on the files of other connected

cases.

September 15, 2025 (Pankaj Jain)

Dpr Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No