Property Not Ancestral Merely Due to Equal Shares; Registered Will Excluding Heir Upheld in Absence of Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Amarjit Singh v. Hardeep Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Date of Judgment: April 28, 2026
Citation: RSA-1391-1990
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that property cannot be termed ancestral merely because it was previously held jointly or in equal shares. In absence of proof of inheritance through generations or existence of joint family nucleus, the property remains self-acquired. The Court further held that mere exclusion of a legal heir, advanced age of testator, or attesting witnesses being related to beneficiaries do not constitute suspicious circumstances where execution of a registered Will is duly proved.
Summary: The dispute arose from a suit for declaration and possession concerning agricultural land and other assets left by Hira Singh. The plaintiffs, sons of the deceased, relied on a registered Will dated 14.11.1979, which bequeathed the entire property in their favour, excluding the appellant-son Amarjit Singh. The trial court and first appellate court both upheld the Will and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
The appellant challenged the findings in second appeal on two primary grounds. First, he argued that the property was ancestral, claiming it originated from land in Pakistan inherited by Hira Singh and later exchanged upon migration to India. Second, he alleged that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, citing the advanced age of the testator, his travel to another town for registration, and involvement of related witnesses.
The High Court rejected both contentions. It held that no evidence was led to establish that the original property in Pakistan was ancestral or inherited across generations. The Court clarified that equality of shares or joint holding does not automatically confer ancestral character. It further noted that no proof existed of a joint family nucleus from which the property could have been acquired.
On the issue of the Will, the Court found no suspicious circumstances. It observed that the testator’s age, place of registration, or relationship of witnesses did not invalidate the Will. The exclusion of the appellant was explained by prior disputes and the fact that he had already received substantial land during the testator’s lifetime. The Court emphasized that once execution and attestation of a Will are duly proved, deviation from natural succession cannot be a ground for invalidation.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below, holding that the Will dated 14.11.1979 was validly executed and free from suspicious circumstances. It further held that the appellant failed to establish that the suit property was ancestral or part of a joint Hindu family estate. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession rights as declared by the trial court were upheld.