Ancestral Land Cannot Be Willed Away: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Rejection of Suspicious 1985 Will

Case Name: Sinder Singh and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others

Date of Judgment: 17 February 2026

Citation: RSA-2150-1991

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Archana Puri

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the suit property is proved to be ancestral coparcenary property, the propounder of a Will must strictly prove due execution and dispel all suspicious circumstances. Mere registration of a Will does not by itself establish its validity. In the absence of credible attestation and compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, such a Will cannot be accepted as genuine.

Summary: The Regular Second Appeal was filed by Ranjit Singh and his sons challenging the concurrent judgments dated 08.12.1987 and 20.04.1991 whereby the suit filed by Surjit Singh and others for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession was decreed .

The plaintiffs had sought declaration that the agricultural land detailed in the plaint was joint Hindu Family coparcenary property of Kehar Singh and his sons. The defendants, grandsons of Kehar Singh, relied upon a Will dated 06.02.1985 allegedly executed by Kehar Singh in their favour .

The primary controversy before the Courts below was twofold: whether the suit property was ancestral coparcenary property and whether the Will dated 06.02.1985 was validly executed.

On the question of nature of property, the Courts examined revenue records including jamabandis and mutation entries tracing ownership from Gata Singh to Kehar Singh. Though objections were raised regarding alleged missing links in pre- and post-consolidation records, both Courts found sufficient documentary linkage establishing that the land had descended from Gata Singh to Kehar Singh and retained its ancestral character .

The High Court affirmed the finding that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Kehar Singh. Minor variations in khasra and khata numbers after consolidation did not break the chain of inheritance as the overall linkage through revenue records stood established .

With respect to the Will, the appellants examined five witnesses including attesting witnesses and the scribe. However, the Courts found material inconsistencies in their testimonies. Crucially, neither attesting witness clearly deposed that the testator signed or affixed his thumb impression in their presence and that they attested the Will in his presence, as mandated under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act .

The High Court noted contradictions regarding who was present at the time of execution, whether the Will was read over to the testator, and the circumstances of registration. One attesting witness was closely related to the beneficiaries, being father-in-law of two of them. The manner of registration was also found perfunctory, with endorsements made in the clerk’s room rather than proper attestation before the Sub Registrar .

The Court reiterated settled principles that the onus to prove due execution and dispel suspicious circumstances lies upon the propounder. A Will speaks from the death of the testator and must satisfy the conscience of the Court. Mere registration does not cure suspicious circumstances .

On cumulative appreciation, the Courts below had rightly concluded that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and had not been duly proved. The High Court held that there was no misreading or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference in second appeal under Section 100 CPC .

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The concurrent findings declaring the property ancestral and rejecting the Will dated 06.02.1985 were upheld .