Sohan Lal And Ors vs Gurdeep Kaur And Ors

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2388-2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.10.2026
SOHAN LAL AND ORS
… Appellants
Versus
GURDEEP KAUR AND ORS
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate
for respondents.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The appellants/defendants have preferred the present Regular
Second Appeal (‘RSA’ for short), assailing the judgment and decree dated
14.02.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby
the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, was reversed. The
appellants seek setting aside of the impugned judgment and restoration of
the Trial Court’s decree on the grounds of perversity, errors of law and
misappreciation of evidence.
2. The brief facts culminating in the present appeal are that the
plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking declaration of joint ownership and
possession over the suit land to the extent of their inherited shares,
challenging the Will dated 25.05.1994 allegedly executed by Batna in
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:2:-
favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 as forged, fabricated and invalid. They
asserted that Batna’s ancestral estate devolved upon his legal heirs,
including Rampal, whose 1/6th share was inherited by the plaintiffs.
Alleging fraudulent mutation No. 1203 dated 24.12.2002, incapacity of the
testator and suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, the plaintiffs
sought joint possession and permanent injunction against alienation of the
suit property.
3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit,
raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and
estoppel. They admitted Batna’s ownership of the suit property and
Rampal’s relationship and death, but asserted that the property was self-
acquired by Batna through sale deeds dated 07.07.1965, 18.07.1967 and
26.12.1973. They maintained that Batna, while in sound disposing mind,
validly executed the Will dated 25.05.1994 in favour of defendants No. 1
to 3, pursuant to which mutation was sanctioned. Denying Rampal’s
possession and cordial relations with Batna, they sought dismissal of the
suit.
4. The plaintiffs filed a replication controverting the defendants’
contentions and reiterating the plaint averments. Upon consideration of the
pleadings, the Court framed the following issues for adjudication:-
1. Whether the Will dated 25.05.1994 allegedly executed by Batna in
favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 is forged, false, fabricated null and
void document on the grounds mentioned in Para No.4 of the
plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration to the
effect that the plaintiffs are joint owners in possession of the suit
th
land to the extent of 1/6 share? OPP
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:3:-
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of joint possession as
prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
5. Whether defendant Nos.1 to 3 are owners of the suit property to the
exclusion of plaintiffs on the basis of Will dated 25.05.1994 ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped by their acts and conducts from
filing the present suit ? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present sit?
OPD
9. Relief
5. Both parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to
adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon conclusion of
the trial and consideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal
before the First Appellate Court, which, upon reappraisal of the evidence
and consideration of the rival submissions, allowed the appeal, set aside
the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Trial Court, and
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
6. The appellants/plaintiffs, aggrieved by the findings recorded
by the First Appellate Court, have preferred the present appeal. Upon its
admission, notice was issued to the respondents, who entered appearance
through counsel and contested the appeal. The records of the Courts below
were also summoned for consideration.
7. As regards the scope of the present second appeal, it is a
settled proposition of law that appeals arising within the jurisdiction of the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:4:-
Punjab and Haryana High Court are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1918, rather than Section 100 CPC. This position stands
authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead)
through LRs and others vs. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC 157 ,
and reiterated in Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR vs. Ram
Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC 317 , and Satender and others vs.
Saroj and others, 2022 (12) SCALE 92 . In view of the aforesaid
pronouncements, the present appeal is examined within the ambit of
Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and no substantial question of
law is required to be formulated as a prerequisite for its adjudication.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
exclusion of a natural heir, by itself, does not constitute a suspicious
circumstance, as the very object of executing a Will is to depart from the
ordinary course of succession. It was argued that Will Ex.D1 specifically
records the reasons for disinheriting the testator’s daughters as well as his
son, Ram Pal. The latter was serving in the Army, residing separately and
retaining his earnings, whereas the other sons lived with the testator and
assisted him in agricultural activities. Further, the testator had incurred
expenditure on Ram Pal’s education and believed that he had already
provided adequately for him. Learned counsel submitted that these
circumstances furnished a plausible explanation for the disposition made
under the Will.
8.1. It was further contended that the First Appellate Court had
reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court without any
evidentiary foundation. There was no medical evidence to suggest that the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:5:-
testator lacked a sound disposing mind, nor was there any material to
establish that he had been kept in captivity or subjected to undue influence
by the beneficiaries. The finding that the attesting witnesses were close
relatives of the beneficiaries was also assailed as contrary to the record,
since one witness was Sohan Singh, the village Sarpanch, and the other
was a co-villager. Learned counsel further submitted that the observation
regarding the Will not having come to light for eight years was
unsustainable, as the Will was duly registered and available in the office of
the Sub-Registrar. On these grounds, it was urged that the findings of the
First Appellate Court were perverse and liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
findings of the First Appellate Court, contending that they were founded
upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and warranted no interference.
It was argued that the reasons recorded in Will Ex.D1 for disinheriting
Ram Pal were factually incorrect, thereby constituting a suspicious
circumstance which the propounder was obligated to dispel. The First
Appellate Court had, therefore, rightly placed reliance upon Bachan
Singh and another vs. Bakshish Singh, 2000 (2) SimLJ 1586 , wherein
this Court held that the propounder must dispel suspicious circumstances
and satisfy the judicial conscience that the testator had sufficient reasons
for preferring the beneficiary over the excluded heirs. Reliance was also
placed upon Rajeev Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar, 2003 (2) PLJ 586 ,
reiterating the duty of the propounder to explain such circumstances, and
Bharpur Singh and Others vs. Shamsher Singh, 2009 (1) SCC (Civil)
934 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court expounded the principles
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:6:-
governing the assessment of suspicious circumstances surrounding the
execution of a Will and has held as under:-
17. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be
surrounded in the execution of the Will:
i) The signature of the testator may be very shaky
and doubtful or not appear to be his usual
signature.
ii) The condition of the testator's mind may be very
feeble and debilitated at the relevant time.
iii) The disposition may be unnatural, improbable or
unfair in the light of relevant circumstances like
exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for
the natural heirs without any reason.
iv) The dispositions may not appear to be the result of
the testator's free will and mind.
v) The propounder takes a prominent part in the
execution of the Will.
vi) The testator used to sign blank papers.
vii) The Will did not see the light of the day for
long.
viii) Incorrect recitals of essential facts.
9.1 Learned counsel for the respondents, accordingly, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal, contending that the impugned judgment and
decree of the First Appellate Court suffer from no illegality or infirmity
warranting interference.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely
scrutinised the record with their able assistance, it emerges that the Trial
Court recorded detailed findings on the various grounds of challenge and
held that Will Ex.D1 had been duly executed by Batna Ram, who was
competent to execute the same. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the
suit property was ancestral or that Batna Ram lacked the authority to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:7:-
bequeath it. The Trial Court further found that Batna Ram was in a sound
disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will, there being no
evidence to the contrary. The Will was duly registered, and the testator
survived for approximately two years after its execution.
10.1. As regards the allegation of confinement, the Trial Court
found no evidence that Batna Ram had been kept in captivity or prevented
from meeting others. On the contrary, PW-1 admitted in cross-examination
that Batna Ram used to visit the hospital to obtain medicines and
thereafter return home. The allegation that the attesting witnesses were
associated with respondents No. 1 to 3 was also held to be unsubstantiated
for want of evidence. The Trial Court further concluded that the Will had
been duly proved through its attesting witnesses and that no material
established that the thumb impressions appearing thereon were not those
of Batna Ram. It also observed that the mere exclusion of natural heirs did
not, by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance.
10.2. The First Appellate Court, however, reversed these findings,
holding that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances on
account of the allegedly unnatural and inequitable disposition. Relying
upon Bharpur Singh’s case (supra), it observed that no particulars of the
property allegedly given to Ram Pal during Batna Ram’s lifetime had been
furnished. It further held that the respondents had failed to explain the
apparent absence of love and affection towards Ram Pal, whose exclusion
from inheritance was considered unnatural and unfair. The First Appellate
Court also regarded the production of the Will only on 24.12.2002, at the
time of sanctioning the mutation, despite its purported execution on
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:8:-
25.05.1994, as a significant suspicious circumstance. Additionally, it
concluded that Batna Ram, owing to old age and illness, was bedridden
and dependent upon respondents No. 1 to 3, who allegedly exercised
undue influence over him and prevented him from meeting others,
including Ram Pal.
11. A careful appraisal of the evidence reveals that the findings of
the First Appellate Court regarding the alleged confinement of Batna Ram
are unsustainable. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that Batna Ram
used to visit the hospital to obtain medicines and return home. In the
absence of any other evidence establishing that he was confined or
prevented from meeting others, the finding of undue influence founded
upon such alleged confinement cannot be sustained.
11.1. The finding that the Will remained concealed for eight years is
equally untenable. The Will was duly registered on the date of its
execution by the testator himself; hence, its production at the time of
sanctioning the mutation does not, by itself, establish concealment.
Significantly, the wife of Ram Pal admitted in her cross-examination that
the plaintiffs had acquired knowledge of the Will within one year. The
inference drawn by the First Appellate Court on this ground, therefore,
does not withstand scrutiny.
11.2. As regards Ram Pal’s disinheritance and the recital in Ex.D1
that the testator had adequately provided for him during his lifetime, the
propounders were not required to establish the testator’s subjective
thought process, but to dispel the suspicious circumstances, if any,
surrounding the execution of the Will. The evidence indicates that Ram Pal
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:9:-
had received education, was serving in the Army, resided separately at his
place of posting and earned an independent salary, whereas the other sons
resided with Batna Ram and assisted him in agricultural activities. In these
circumstances, neither the absence of particulars of the property allegedly
given to Ram Pal during the testator’s lifetime nor his exclusion from the
testamentary disposition, by itself, constitutes a suspicious circumstance
sufficient to invalidate the Will. The governing principles in this regard
stand elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvathi Nairthi
(Dead) and Others vs. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) through LRs and
Others, 2026 INSC 521 , as under:-
32. The contention of the Appellants that the Appellants, being the
natural heirs of the testator, have been outrightly excluded without
any reason and 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 ….xxxx….
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the findings recorded by
the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained, as they do not flow from a
proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Conversely, the findings
returned by the Trial Court are well-founded and consistent with the
evidence. The appellants-defendants have successfully established the due
execution of the Will by Batna Ram, and no suspicious circumstance
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31

RSA-2388-2012 (O&M) -:10:-
warranting its invalidation has been proved. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed , the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court are
set aside, and those passed by the Trial Court are restored.
12.1. In view of the final adjudication of the main matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
No further orders are called for.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
31.10.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.10.31 11:31