RANCHHODBHAI KISHORBHAI PATEL vs ARVINDBHAI LALJIBHAI PATEL

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 295 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 295 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RANCHHODBHAI KISHORBHAI PATEL
Versus
ARVINDBHAI LALJIBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARIMALSINH PARMAR(7296) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHASHVATA U SHUKLA(8069) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 19/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Parimalsinh Parmar, learned advocate for the
appellant and Mr. Shashvata U. Shukla, learned advocate for
the respondent.
2. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising out of the judgment
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
th
and decree dated 19.01.2018 passed by the learned 5
Additional (Ad-hoc) Addtional District Judge, Panchmahals at
Godhra in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2017, whereby the
Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated
21.12.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Godhra, in Regular Civil Suit No.212 of 2002.
3. The appellant here is the original plaintiff, whereas the
respondent herein is the original defendant of the suit. For the
sake of convenience and brevity, herein-after they will be
referred as per their original position in the suit.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
4. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.212 of 2002
seeking a declaration that the Will executed by his aunt,
namely Laliben in favor of the defendant be declared as
shame, bogus and fraudulent. It is an undisputed fact that
said Laliben died leaving behind no children and her husband
namely, Shivabhai died prior to her. The defendant is son of
nephew of said Laliben, whereas the plaintiff appears to be
nephew of said Laliben. The defendant appeared and
contested the suit on all possible count. The necessary issues
were framed by the trial Court. Upon appreciation of evidence
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
on record, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated
21.12.2016, dismissed the suit.
4.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the
plaintiff preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2017
before Appellate Court. Even after re-appreciation of evidence
and hearing the parties, the Appellate Court also disbelieved
the case of the plaintiff, thereby confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present
second appeal.
SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT:
5. Mr. Parmar, learned advocate for the appellant would
submit that the Courts below have committed serious error in
law by not properly appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence led by the plaintiff and accordingly, dismissed the
suit.
5.1 It is submitted that there were suspicious circumstances
which create reasonable doubt in prudent mind about
genuineness of the Will executed by deceased Laliben in favor
of defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff examined the
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
local village Talati [Exhibit 23] and also a neutral witness
namely, Bhailalbhai Zaverbhai Patel [Exhibit 33], who
supported the case of the plaintiff, which established that the
Will allegedly executed by Laliben in favour of defendant is
not a genuine one.
5.2 Mr. Parmar, learned advocate for the petitioner would
further submit that even though there is a concurrent findings
of fact recorded by Courts below against the plaintiff, but
those findings are not only perverse but grossly erroneous,
which requires interference by this Court while exercising its
power under section 100 of CPC.
5.3 To buttress his argument, Mr. Parmar, learned advocate
for the appellant would rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Rajasthan And Others Vs.
Shiv Dayal And Another reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637 .
5.4 Making the above submissions, Mr.Parmar, learned
advocate would urge this Court to admit this second appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT :
6. Per contra, Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the
respondent - defendant would submit that this Court should
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
not interfere with the findings of fact concurrently recorded
by the Courts below against the plaintiff, whereby it has been
held that the Will executed by deceased Laliben in favor of the
defendant is not shame, bogus and fraudulent. It is submitted
that the Will in question is a registered Will and its
presumptive value in regards to its genuineness and validity is
much more than an ordinary Will.
6.1 It is further submitted that the defendant examined the
witness to the Will, thereby the defendant proved the Will in
accordance with law. It is further submitted that when both
the courts below have concurrently decided that the Will is
genuine and proved in accordance with law, and the plaintiff
failed to prove his case, this Court may not interfere with such
finding of fact.
6.2 Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent would
further submit that as per settled position of law, this Court
should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by
Courts below unless it is perverse and/or grossly erroneous,
which is not the case at hand. It is submitted that merely
because the Will is executed by Laliben in favor of the
defendant itself is not itself become a ground to raise any
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
suspicion and as per settled position of law, the Will cannot be
declared as null and void on such ground.
6.3 In support of his submission, Mr.Shukla, learned
advocate would rely upon the following judgments:-
(1) Gurdev Kaur And Others Vs. Kaki And Others
reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546;
(2) Sharadkumar Pratapray Pattani Vs. Soni
Bhagubhai Lakhubhai Pattani rendered in Second
Appeal No.310 of 2026 .
6.4 Making the above submissions, Mr.Shukla, learned
advocate would request this Court to dismiss this second
appeal.
7. No other or further submissions have been advanced by
the learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS :
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the Courts below, this Second Appeal is
directed against concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below against the plaintiff, whereby it has been held
that the plaintiff failed to prove on record that the registered
Will executed by the deceased Laliben in favour of the
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
defendant is shame, bogus and fraudulent. Once such would
be the case, it is a heavy burden upon the appellant-plaintiff to
show that how such findings of fact recorded by the courts
below against him are perverse and/or grossly erroneous. In
light of the settled position of law, this court can only
entertain this second appeal if any apparent perversity and/or
any gross irregularity comes up from the findings of fact
recorded by the courts below.
9. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to and
rely upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court,
wherein the scope and ambit of the power of interference of
this Court while exercising its power under Section 100 of
CPC has been lucidly discussed.
9.1 In the case of Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. vs. Bhavna
Seth - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 555 , it has been categorically
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that this Court should not
interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Courts below
unless they are so perverse or grossly erroneous, and/or
contrary to a settled principle of law. The relevant
observations of the said decision read thus:
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
“31. It is settled in law that the findings of fact howsoever
erroneous, cannot be reopened and disturbed in second
appeal which is required to be adjudicated only upon the
substantial question of law, if any, arising therein. Thus,
the argument that the High Court in second appeal ought
to have examined the evidence to ensure the correctness
of the findings of the First Appellate Court has no legs to
stand and fails.
32. Long back in 1981, three judges of this Court in the
case of Bholaram vs. Ameerchand – (1981) 2 SCC 414
had ruled that even if findings of facts by courts below are
wrong or grossly inexcusable that by itself would not
entitle the High Court to interfere under Section 100 CPC
in the absence of clear error of law. A similar view was
reiterated in Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (Dead)
by Lrs. - (2005) 10 SCC 553 , wherein it has been laid
down that even if the First Appellate Court commits an
error in recording a finding of fact, that itself will not be a
ground for the High Court to upset the same.
33. In Kashibai w/o Lachiram v. Parwatibai w/o
Lachiram – (1995) 6 SCC 213 , a similar proposition of
law was laid down by this Court and it was held that the
High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and
interfere with the findings of facts unless a substantial
question of law or a question of law duly formulated is to
be decided. The second appeal does not lie on the ground
of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of the
relevant evidence.
35. Again, in Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann
(Dead) by Lrs – AIR 2001 SC 1273 , it was emphasized
that the fact remains that in a second appeal, a finding of
fact, even if erroneous, will not be disturbed unless it is
found that it stands vitiated for want of perversity. No
such case for interference has been made out in the
present case."
(Emphasis supplied)
9.2 It is also profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
Others v. Sahnulal and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3864 , whereby, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:-
“25. In Kshitisn Chandra Purkait v. Santhosh
Kumar Purkait reported in (1997) 5 S.C.C. 438) ,
this Court held that in the Second Appeal, the High
Court should be satisfied that the case involves a
substantial question of law and not mere question of
law.
27. This Court in Kondira Dagadu Kadam v.
Savitribai Sopan Gujar reported in AIR 1999 S.C.
2213 held:-
“The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for
the opinion of the first Appellate Court unless it is
found that the conclusions drawn by the lower
Appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to
the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its
settled position on the basis of pronouncements
made by the Apex Court, or was based upon
inadmissible evidence or arrived at without
evidence.”
28. It is thus clear that under Section 100, C.P.C., the
High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the
final Court of facts except in such cases where such
findings were erroneous being contrary to the
mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on
the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex
Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or
without evidence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid position of law, this Court
can only entertain the second appeal if any apparent
perversity and/or any gross irregularity comes up from the
finding of fact recorded by Courts below.
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
11. Mr. Parmar, learned advocate for the appellant has tried
his best to convince this Court that the trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the oral evidence
led by the plaintiff in proper perspective, thereby, committed
serious error in law. But such submission would not carry the
case of the appellant further for the simple reason that as per
settled position of law, the appellant has to make out a case,
whereby it is to be shown to this Court that the finding of fact
recorded by Courts below is either perverse or grossly
erroneous.
12. It is undisputed fact that the Will executed by Laliben
in question is a registered Will. It is settled position of law
that registration creates a strong presumption of validity and
genuineness of document sought to be registered. The
registration process is not mere procedure formality but a
solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the
document. [See- Hemalatha (D) By Lrs. Vs. Tukaram (D) By
Lrs . reported in 2026 (0) AIR (SC) 615]. The witness to the Will
namely Abbasbhai Ismailbhai Saniyaravala [Exhibit 56] was
examined before the learned trial Court to prove the
execution of the Will. Likewise, person who identified said
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
Laliben before the Registrar concerned at the time of
registering the Will also examined namely Parshottambhai
Madhavbhai Patel [Exhibit 50]. Having gone through the
evidence of such witnesses, prima facie , there is no perversity
and/or any gross irregularity on the part of the trial court in
accepting the oral evidence of such witnesses.
13. Per Contra, the plaintiff was unable to bring on record
any oral and/or documentary evidence whereby it can be
proved that there was, in fact, no execution of the Will by
Laliben. The plaintiff also failed to make out any reasonable
suspicion in prudent mind, as there is no material on record to
show that the execution of the Will by Laliben in favour of the
defendant is in any manner create any reasonable doubt
inasmuch as the defendant is equally a son of nephew, like the
plaintiff, who happens to be a nephew of Laliben.
14. The aspect of suspicion of Will and in a case on hand,
when both the Courts concurrently held against the plaintiff, it
would be appropriate to refer to and to place reliance upon
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parvathi
Nairthi (Dead) and Ors. V/s. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead)
Through Lrs. And Ors. , reported in 2026 LawSuit(SC) 570
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
: 2026 INSC 521 , wherein, the following principles have
been discussed and propounded:
“ Scope of Suspicious Circumstances to Vitiate a
Will
[32] The contention of the Appellants that the
Appellants, being the natural heirs of the testator, have
been out-rightly excluded without any reason and12 pt
that such exclusion constitutes a suspicious
circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will is
legally untenable. It is well- established that mere
deprivation of natural heirs, by itself, may not
amount to a suspicious circumstance because the
whole idea behind the execution of a Will is to
interfere with the normal line of succession, as
categorically held in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee
and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs
and Others, 1995 4 SCC 459 . However, in the case of
Ram Piari v. Bhagwant and Ors., 1990 3 SCC 364 .
this Court also held that prudence requires reason for
denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and
an absence of it, though not invalidating the Will in all
cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicious as it does
not give inking to the mind of the testator to enable the
Court to judge that disposition was a voluntary act.
[33] This brings us to the next issue i.e., what are the
suspicious circumstances which may vitiate the
disposition of a Will. In Indu Bala Bose & Ors. v.
Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr., 1982 1 SCC 20 .
this Court held that-
"8. Needless to say that any and every
circumstance is not a "suspicious" circumstance. A
circumstance would be "suspicious" when it is not
normal or is not normally expected in a normal
situation or is not expected of a normal person."
[34] With regard to the prudence to be drawn while
determining the suspicious circumstances, all the
Courts have unambiguously opined that the Will in
question was validly executed. It is trite to state that
when the validity of a Will is to be determined, the
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
overall terms of a Will, the intention of the testator and
the surrounding circumstances have also to be seen.
Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from the property of
the testator, by itself, cannot be construed as a
suspicious circumstance so as to invalidate a Will out-
rightly. A testator is legally entitled to dispose of
his property according to his own wishes, and
unless the exclusion is accompanied by suspicious
circumstances affecting the genuineness or due
execution of a Will, such exclusion alone does not
render a Will invalid. Thus, we are of the considered
view that the exclusion of the natural heirs cannot be
sufficient to vitiate the Will in question, particularly
when the Will clearly specifies that the testator has not
done any injustice to his wife, children, or other
relatives, and that he has given enough to his wife and
children who are residing at Bombay.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid exposition of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that
plaintiff is even failed to prove any suspicious circumstances
as regards execution of Will by Laliben in favor of the
defendant.
16. Having found that there is no error, much less any gross
error of law, and no finding of fact recorded by the courts
below is either perverse and/or grossly erroneous, I am of the
considered view that the plaintiff failed to make out a case of
interference, inasmuch as the present second appeal does not
raise any substantial questions of law.
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026

C/SA/295/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240640232019)
17. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I do not
find any merit in this second appeal. Accordingly, it is
dismissed in limine . No orders as to costs. Decree shall be
drawn up accordingly.
18. As a sequel, the Civil Application for Stay would not
survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
A. B. VAGHELA
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:07:00 IST 2026