Registered Will Excluding Sons Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Testator Was Old or One Attesting Witness Signed Multiple Documents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Satpal (Since Deceased) through LRs v. Sardari Lal and Others

Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026

Citation: RSA-3904-1997

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a registered Will cannot be discarded merely because the testator was of advanced age or because an attesting witness had attested several documents in the past. The Court reiterated that suspicious circumstances surrounding a Will must be supported by cogent evidence and not by conjectures or hyper-technical objections.

Summary: The dispute arose between three brothers regarding property left behind by their father, Gurdas Ram. The plaintiff challenged a registered Will dated 13.03.1981 allegedly executed by the father in favour of defendant Sardari Lal, contending that the property was ancestral and that the Will had been procured by taking advantage of the father’s alleged physical and mental infirmity.

It was alleged that the father, owing to advanced age and illness, lacked sound disposing mind and that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The plaintiff also challenged the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the Will and sought partition claiming one-third share in the property.

The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff’s case and declared the Will and mutation illegal while granting the plaintiff one-third share in the suit property. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree and upheld the validity of the registered Will, leading to the Regular Second Appeal before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the Will suffered from several suspicious circumstances including non-production of the original Will for several years, alleged lack of testamentary capacity of the father suffering from chronic asthma, active participation of the beneficiary in execution of the Will, unnatural exclusion of the other sons and unreliability of the attesting witness alleged to be a “professional witness.”

The contesting respondent defended the Will by asserting that the testator was residing exclusively with Sardari Lal, who alone had been taking care of him. It was further contended that there were valid reasons for excluding the other sons, including strained relations and misconduct of another son Jagdish Lal, due to which an earlier Will executed in 1978 had also been cancelled.

The High Court upheld the findings of the First Appellate Court and observed that there was no material on record to establish that the testator lacked sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will. The Court held that advanced age or physical ailments by themselves cannot raise a presumption of lack of testamentary capacity.

The Court further held that since the Will was a registered document, a presumption attached regarding due execution and regularity of official acts under Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court observed that it must ordinarily be presumed that the contents of the Will had been read over and explained to the testator at the time of registration.

Rejecting the allegation that the attesting witness was a “professional witness,” the Court observed that merely because a witness had attested multiple documents over a period of time could not by itself discredit his testimony. The Court noted that Sub-Registrars commonly request persons of recognized public standing to attest documents for purposes of identification and reliability.

The High Court also rejected the contention regarding delayed production of the original Will, observing that the document had already been produced before revenue authorities during mutation proceedings and that secondary evidence from official records had been validly proved.

The Court further held that exclusion of natural heirs by itself does not invalidate a Will where the testator records rational reasons for such exclusion. It noted that the father had specifically recorded dissatisfaction with the conduct of the excluded sons and had chosen to favour the son who had remained with and cared for him.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the judgment of the First Appellate Court validating the registered Will dated 13.03.1981 executed in favour of Sardari Lal.