Case Name: Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram (deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Citation: 2020 INSC 316
Date of Order: 19 March 2020
Bench: Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta
Held: The Supreme Court held that a registered Will can be proved through secondary evidence when the original is lost, without a separate application, if a proper foundation is laid. Examination of one attesting witness who speaks to his own attestation, the testator’s signature, and the other attesting witness satisfies Section 63 of the Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Mere exclusion of some natural heirs is not, by itself, a suspicious circumstance. The High Court, in second appeal, could not reappreciate concurrent factual findings under the Punjab Courts Act.
Summary: The plaintiff sought a declaration of joint ownership over ancestral lands and attacked a 30.04.1980 Will said to favor his brother’s sons. The trial court, affirmed by the first appellate court, found that the family had already partitioned; the Will was duly executed and registered; the original had been lost but a certified copy and the scribe’s copy were produced; and an attesting witness (Maha Singh) proved execution and attestation. In second appeal, the High Court reversed, terming the Will suspicious for not naming certain heirs and for non-production of the original, and questioned proof since the second attesting witness was not examined. The Supreme Court ruled that secondary evidence is admissible when loss is shown; witnesses were not cross-examined on loss; and the attesting witness’s testimony met statutory requirements. It reiterated that “disinheritance” alone doesn’t create suspicion and that second-appeal jurisdiction does not permit reweighing evidence absent legal error.
Decision: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; decree of the first appellate court restored, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.