A codicil must be proved like a will, with suspicious circumstances dispelled by its propounder.

The appellant-plaintiff claimed that the disputed shop formed part of the property of his father, Hari Chand, who had executed a Will dated 6 May 1957 and an alleged Codicil dated 1 January 1959 bequeathing the shop to the appellant.

Hari Chand died on 21 December 1963.

The appellant asserted that respondent-defendant No. 1 had no title or authority to sell the property, but nevertheless executed a sale deed dated 19 April 1982 in favour of respondents-defendants Nos. 2 and 3.

The respondents disputed the execution and genuineness of the Codicil and relied upon prior family arrangements, including an agreement dated 19 March 1964 and an arbitral award dated 2 May 1967, in which the appellant had not asserted any rights under the alleged Codicil.

The trial Court dismissed the suit on 31 October 1986, and the first appellate Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 3 August 1988.

The appellant thereafter preferred the present regular second appeal.

Whether the Codicil dated 1 January 1959, allegedly executed by Hari Chand in favour of the appellant, was duly executed and proved so as to confer title upon the appellant.

Whether the sale deed dated 19 April 1982 executed by respondent-defendant No. 1 in favour of respondents-defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was not binding upon the appellant’s rights.

Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting the Codicil gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference in regular second appeal.

A Codicil must be proved in the same manner as a Will, and the propounder bears the burden of establishing its due execution and of removing any genuine or suspicious circumstances surrounding it.

Where the document is produced after an unexplained delay, the original is withheld, its contents were not asserted in earlier family or succession proceedings, and surrounding conduct is inconsistent with the claimed testamentary right, such circumstances may legitimately create suspicion regarding its execution and genuineness.

Concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence ordinarily cannot be interfered with in a regular second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises.

The Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the Codicil.

Although Hari Chand died in 1963, the alleged Codicil was not produced or relied upon for nearly 20 years, including during the family settlement dated 19 March 1964 and the arbitration proceedings culminating in the award dated 2 May 1967.

The appellant also did not assert ownership, demand rent, or object when respondent-defendant No. 1 inducted a tenant into the shop and collected rent from 1963 until the sale in 1982, despite being aware of the property and conducting business in Jalandhar.

The original Codicil was not produced; instead, a photocopy was sought to be proved by secondary evidence after a substantial delay.

The evidence of the alleged scribe was also found unreliable, and the document’s appearance—bearing signatures at two places on what appeared to be a blank paper intended for an affidavit or petition—remained unexplained.

These circumstances, considered cumulatively, justified the concurrent finding that the Codicil was surrounded by grave suspicion and had not been duly proved.

Since the determination was factual and supported by evidence, no substantial question of law arose.

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish that the sale deed dated 19 April 1982 was not binding upon his rights.

The regular second appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and first appellate Court were affirmed.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.