Registered Will Cannot Be Invalidated on Mere Suspicion; Long Cohabitation Raises Presumption of Marriage; Sonless Proprietor May Bequeath Property Despite Customary Law Restrictions: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Surmukh Singh & Others v. Smt. Debo & Others
Date of Judgment: 06 July 2026
Citation: RSA No. 109 of 1992
Bench: Justice Harkesh Manuja
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a registered Will, once proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be invalidated merely on the basis of conjectures or insignificant suspicious circumstances. The Court ruled that the mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of execution of the Will or the fact that one attesting witness belonged to another village does not constitute a legitimate ground to doubt the genuineness of the testament.
The Court further held that prolonged cohabitation between a man and a woman gives rise to a strong legal presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which can only be displaced by cogent evidence. Even independently of a valid matrimonial relationship, a sonless proprietor is legally competent to make a testamentary disposition in favour of a person who lived with and rendered services to him, and such a disposition is not rendered invalid merely because customary restrictions governing ancestral property are invoked by collateral heirs. The Court also reiterated that a decree which has attained finality cannot be subjected to collateral challenge in subsequent proceedings.
Summary: The dispute arose out of a claim over agricultural land originally owned by Bishan Singh, who died issueless in 1979. The plaintiffs, being collaterals of the deceased, instituted a suit for possession by asserting that the suit property was ancestral in nature and that Bishan Singh, being a Jat governed by customary law, lacked the authority to execute a Will or otherwise alienate the property in favour of Smt. Debo. They challenged the registered Will dated 15 March 1976 executed in her favour, questioned her status as the legally wedded wife of Bishan Singh, alleged that the Will had been procured under suspicious circumstances, and also sought to invalidate an earlier consent decree through which half of the property had already been transferred to her. The subsequent sale of a portion of the property by Debo in favour of third-party purchasers was also questioned.
Upon examining the record, the High Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The Court observed that the Will had been proved strictly in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 through the testimony of an attesting witness, whose evidence established not only his own attestation but also that of the other attesting witness. The Court held that the non-examination of the scribe did not affect the validity of the Will since the law requires proof through an attesting witness and not necessarily through the scribe.
Rejecting the allegations of suspicious circumstances, the Court observed that neither the residence of an attesting witness in a neighbouring village nor the presence of the beneficiary during execution of the Will could, by themselves, justify an inference of undue influence or coercion. In the absence of any evidence establishing fraud, coercion or active participation amounting to undue influence, the Court concluded that the registered Will could not be discarded on speculative grounds.
On the issue of the relationship between Bishan Singh and Debo, the Court attached considerable significance to the consent decree of 1978, in which Bishan Singh himself had acknowledged Debo as his wife while transferring half of the property in her favour. That decree had never been challenged during his lifetime or in any independent proceedings and had therefore attained finality. The Court further noticed that the evidence on record demonstrated that Bishan Singh and Debo had lived together for several years and that Debo had continuously cared for him. Applying the settled principle that long and continuous cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage, the Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the heavy burden required to rebut that presumption. The Court further clarified that even assuming a valid marriage had not been established, the testamentary disposition in favour of a person who had resided with and rendered services to the deceased would nevertheless remain legally sustainable.
The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance upon customary law governing ancestral property. While acknowledging that customary restrictions ordinarily regulated testamentary alienation, the Court held that recognised exceptions permitted a sonless proprietor to make a valid disposition in favour of a person who had rendered lifelong services to him. Since the plaintiffs had failed to establish any custom excluding such an exception, and considering that the earlier decree transferring half the property had already attained finality, the challenge founded on customary law was found to be without merit. The Court additionally noted that the plaintiffs themselves had acknowledged Debo’s title in earlier proceedings and could not subsequently adopt an inconsistent position by questioning both her marital status and the validity of the Will.
Decision: Dismissing the Regular Second Appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the judgments and decrees passed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It held that the registered Will dated 15 March 1976 executed by Bishan Singh in favour of Smt. Debo had been validly proved and was free from any legally sustainable suspicious circumstances. The Court further held that the presumption arising from long cohabitation, coupled with the unchallenged consent decree and the settled principles governing testamentary succession, completely undermined the plaintiffs’ challenge.