Concurrent findings invalidating a suspicious Will cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent a substantial question of law.

Jagmal Singh, the plaintiff, and defendants No. 1 and 2 were brothers and claimed to be descendants of Mulki Ram @ Milkhi Ram.

The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the Will dated 18 March 2008, allegedly executed by Mulki Ram in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 and their sons, and the consequential mutations, were illegal, void, and not binding on his rights.

The defendants contended that the property was self-acquired by Mulki Ram and that the registered Will was genuine and valid.

The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit on 14 September 2016. The Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, dismissed the defendants’ first appeal on 12 October 2022.

The delay of 56 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

The Court applied the principle that the propounder of a Will must prove not only its formal execution but also satisfactorily explain all suspicious circumstances surrounding it, particularly where a natural heir is excluded without apparent justification.

Registration of a Will, by itself, does not establish its genuineness where suspicious circumstances remain unexplained.

The Court further applied the limited scope of jurisdiction in a regular second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, as explained in M/s Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased), 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 325, and Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh, (2019) 17 SCC 71: interference with concurrent findings of fact is impermissible merely because those findings may appear erroneous; interference is warranted only for an error of law or a substantial procedural defect.

The Court found that the defendants had failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.

Mulki Ram had excluded Jagmal Singh, his natural son and heir, but the Will contained no reason for such exclusion, and the defendants produced no convincing evidence of estrangement or relinquishment of the plaintiff’s rights.

The defendants’ assertion that the plaintiff had received property in Uttar Pradesh and had relinquished his interest was neither recorded in the Will nor supported by reliable evidence of any family settlement.

Further, although the evidence showed that Mulki Ram used to sign in English on his salary documents, the disputed Will bore his thumb impression, and the defendants offered no satisfactory explanation for this deviation.

Since these factual findings were concurrently recorded by both courts and were not shown to be illegal, perverse, or based on misreading of evidence, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The concurrent judgments decreeing the plaintiff’s suit and invalidating the Will and consequential mutations were upheld.

The regular second appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and all pending applications were closed.