Punjab & Haryana HC: Suspicious Will Rejected, Widow of Predeceased Son Held Entitled to 1/4th Share in Ancestral Property

Case Name: Gurmail Kaur @ Marri & Anr. v. Naseeb Kaur @ Seebo @ Balwinder Kaur
Date of Judgment: January 14, 2020
Citation: RSA No. 2044 of 2013 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga

Held: The High Court partly allowed the Regular Second Appeal by modifying the judgments of the courts below. It upheld the finding that the will dated 06.06.2003 propounded by the defendants was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and rightly set aside, confirming the widow of the predeceased son as a legal heir. However, it corrected the extent of inheritance, holding that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff was entitled only to 1/4th share in the estate of Jaggar Singh and not 1/3rd as decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. The court clarified that the share of Mukhtiar Kaur, widow of Jaggar Singh, devolved solely upon her daughters (the appellants) and not on the daughter-in-law of her predeceased son.

Summary: The plaintiff, Naseeb Kaur, filed a suit challenging the legality of the will dated 06.06.2003 executed by Jaggar Singh, which bequeathed his estate to his two daughters and his widow Mukhtiar Kaur. She claimed rights as the widow of Jarnail Singh, predeceased son of Jaggar Singh, and sought her share in the estate. The defendants denied her status and relied on the will and a prior compromise. The trial court found the plaintiff to be the legally wedded wife of Jarnail Singh and held the will invalid due to absence of reference to her, irregularities in its drafting, and suspicious circumstances. It declared her entitled to 1/3rd share in Jaggar Singh’s estate. The first appellate court upheld this finding. In second appeal, the High Court agreed that the will was invalid and that the plaintiff, as widow of a predeceased son, was a Class I heir entitled to succeed. However, it held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, property of Mukhtiar Kaur devolved only upon her daughters and not upon the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff’s entitlement was limited to 1/4th share in Jaggar Singh’s estate along with the defendants, and not 1/3rd.

Decision: The High Court modified the judgments and decrees of the courts below, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to inherit 1/4th share in the estate of Jaggar Singh, while the remaining devolved upon the defendants as daughters of Jaggar Singh and heirs of Mukhtiar Kaur.