Dual Rejection of Rival Testamentary Instruments Restores Natural Succession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Mere Registration Incapable of Validating Suspicious Will, Affirms Sister’s Lineage Entitled to Estate
Case Name: Ajaib Singh (since deceased) through LRs & Others v. Bhupinder Singh & Another
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2026
Bench: Justice Pankaj Jain
Citation: RSA-132-1994
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere factum of registration does not sanctify a testamentary document with an absolute stamp of validity, nor does it generate an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness. Where a WILL is cloaked in suspicious circumstances, the statutory onus rests squarely upon the propounder to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court by offering a cogent, convincing explanation to dispel such suspicions.
The Court further held that under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a party to a proceeding demises and their legal representatives are already present on the record in another capacity, the action does not suffer abatement merely for want of a formal application to describe them as legal heirs.
Summary: The appellants (plaintiffs), being the maternal descendants (sons and grandsons) of Ralli, the sister of the original land owner Ralla Singh, preferred a Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent judgments of the Court of First Instance and the Lower Appellate Court. The plaintiffs sought a decree for joint possession of agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of Village Bugga. The undisputed facts established that Ralla Singh was an unmarried land owner who died intestate or otherwise on July 26, 1975.
The plaintiffs anchored their claim on an unregistered WILL dated July 3, 1975 (Ex.P-1), purportedly executed by the deceased out of natural love and affection. Conversely, Defendant No. 1 (a collateral) resisted the suit by propounding a registered WILL dated December 16, 1972 (Ex.D-1), asserting absolute title and exclusive physical possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 2, claiming tenancy over the land, brought on record that Defendant No. 1 had aliened the suit land to subsequent vendees, Bhinder Singh and Gulzara Singh, via registered sale deeds executed in July 1986. Both lower courts concurrently dismissed the suit, finding against the genuineness of the plaintiffs’ 1975 WILL while validating the defendants’ registered 1972 WILL.
In the second appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the 1972 WILL (Ex.D-1) was surrounded by profound, un-dispelled suspicious circumstances. Crucially, evidence revealed that Ralla Singh had successfully secured a restraining decree in 1971 against Malkiat Kaur (the mother of Defendant No. 1), wherein the testator had explicitly alleged that she was exerting coercion upon him to execute a testament in her favor. The plaintiffs further pointed out material defects in the instrument, notably the erroneous description of essential familial relationships.
The respondents raised a threshold objection, asserting that since the subsequent purchasers were not formally impleaded in the memo of parties for the second appeal, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court had attained finality qua them, thereby operating as res judicata. On merits, the respondents maintained that registration, coupled with the depositions of the attesting witness (DW2) and the Sub-Registrar (DW3), discharged their burden of proving due execution.
The High Court sustained the concurrent findings rejecting the plaintiffs’ 1975 WILL, noting that the testator was suffering from terminal debilities and died within 25 days of its alleged execution. However, the High Court reversed the findings concerning the defendants’ 1972 WILL. Invoking seminal Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that registration is a mere circumstance to be evaluated under close scrutiny and cannot bypass the statutory mandate of proving free and conscious execution.
The Court observed that Defendant No. 1 failed to clear the suspicion raised by the historical hostility between the testator and the beneficiary’s mother, the incorrect recitals of facts within the text, and the compromised credibility of the attesting witness (DW2), who admitted to being an interested benami purchaser of the disputed property.
On the procedural issue of non-impleadment, the Court observed that the subsequent purchasers were already present on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 2 (Karnail Singh). Applying the doctrine enunciated in Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram, the High Court ruled that since the parties were adequately represented and heard by the Court in another capacity, the plea of abatement or res judicata was untenable.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts in respect of Issue No. 3. The Court held that both competing testamentary instruments (Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1) were invalid, void, and hit by un-repelled suspicious circumstances.
Consequently, upon the nullification of both WILLs, the Court ruled that the estate of Ralla Singh must devolve through natural intestate succession, thereby holding the plaintiffs as the direct legal heirs of the deceased’s sister, Ralli entitled to succeed to the estate.