A propounder must dispel suspicious circumstances before a Will can be relied upon.

Gurmeet Kaur, widow of Jaspreet Singh, instituted a suit seeking a declaration that she was owner of a one-half share in land measuring 29 kanals 9 marlas 2 sarsais, together with consequential permanent injunction.

Jaspreet Singh had died in a road accident, leaving behind Gurmeet Kaur and his mother, Harjinder Kaur, as his legal heirs.

The plaintiff pleaded that Jaspreet Singh died intestate and that Harjinder Kaur had set up a forged Will allegedly executed by him in her favour.

Harjinder Kaur defended the Will, asserting that it was genuine and that Jaspreet Singh had executed it because he was suffering from a serious illness and the plaintiff had not properly cared for him.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, found the Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, and declared the mutation based upon it illegal and void.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree on 23.01.2023.

Harjinder Kaur thereafter filed the present regular second appeal.

The court applied the settled principle that the propounder of a Will bears the burden of proving its due execution and genuineness and must satisfactorily remove all suspicious circumstances surrounding it.

Suspicious circumstances may include an unnatural or unexplained disposition, the testator’s age and circumstances, doubtful signatures or attestation, irregularities in registration, discrepancies in the document, and the absence of credible evidence regarding its preparation and execution.

The court also considered the principles discussed in Sewa Kaur v. Mohan Singh, namely that a Will is not rendered suspicious merely because it was not scribed by a professional deed writer; however, such circumstance may assume significance when viewed with other surrounding irregularities.

The court distinguished the decisions cited by the appellant, including Sundhri (Dead) through LRs v. Lala Ram (Dead) through LRs and Daljinder Singh v. Harbans Kaur, holding them inapplicable on the facts of the present case.

The courts below identified several cumulative suspicious circumstances: Jaspreet Singh was only about 24 years old and allegedly had no property when the Will was executed; the plea of serious illness was unsupported by medical evidence; the Will purported to exclude a future wife without explanation; the alleged Naib Tehsildar denied his signature; the document was not found in the relevant registration volume and contained discrepancies regarding the volume number; the identity and genuineness of an attesting witness’s signature were doubtful; the alleged signatures of Jaspreet Singh were reported not to match his admitted signatures; and an FIR concerning forgery of the Will had been registered.

The appellant failed to explain or dispel these circumstances.

The High Court held that registration, in the circumstances, could not by itself establish genuineness, particularly when the registration record itself was doubtful.

Since the findings were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and were concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arose for determination in second appeal.

In the absence of a valid Will, Gurmeet Kaur, as the widow of Jaspreet Singh, was entitled to succeed to his estate in equal share with Harjinder Kaur.

The regular second appeal was dismissed, the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were affirmed, and all pending applications were closed.