Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Second Appeal, Upholds Finding That 1984 Will Was Forged and Fabricated
Justice Vikram Aggarwal found the Will riddled with suspicious circumstances, including a four-year-old beneficiary said to have “served” the testator, and an original document that could not be traced.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has dismissed a regular second appeal filed by Jagwinder Singh @ Joginder Singh, confirming concurrent findings by two lower courts that a Will dated 23 February 1984 — through which he claimed title to 64 Kanal 12 Marlas of agricultural land in Village Dialpura Bhaika, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda — was a forged and fabricated document. Justice Vikram Aggarwal, sitting singly, delivered the judgment on 12 May 2026. The suit had been filed by Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur, daughter of the deceased owner Gursewak Singh, seeking declaration, possession, and permanent injunction. Both the trial court and the first appellate court had decreed the suit in her favour. The High Court found no misreading of evidence or misapplication of law that would justify interference in second appeal.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Gursewak Singh, who owned the suit property, died on 1 June 1992. He was survived by his daughter Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur (plaintiff) from his first wife Avtar Kaur Gill, and by Kiranpal Kaur Nagra (defendant No.4) from his second wife Harvinder Kaur. After Gursewak Singh's death, Harvinder Kaur remarried, leaving the plaintiff and defendant No.4 as his only legal heirs.
Gursewak Singh's brother, Beant Singh (defendant No.1), had two sons — Jagwinder Singh @ Joginder Singh (defendant No.2) and Jasvir Singh (defendant No.3). The plaintiff was 15 years old when her father died and had been living with defendants No.1 to 3, reposing trust in them. When she later sought information about the suit property, she was put off. On inquiry, she discovered that a Will dated 23 February 1984 had allegedly been executed by Gursewak Singh in favour of defendant No.2, and that mutation No.2833 dated 4 April 1994 had been entered in defendant No.2's name on the basis of that Will.
The plaintiff's case was that the Will was unregistered at the time of execution and was got registered on 11 March 1993 — after Gursewak Singh's death — in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Moga, with the connivance of revenue officials. She instituted a suit for declaration that the Will and the mutation were illegal, null and void, and for recovery of possession.
Only defendant No.2 contested the suit. The remaining defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. Defendant No.2 raised objections of limitation, maintainability, estoppel, and non-joinder of necessary parties, and asserted that the Will had been validly executed by Gursewak Singh in a sound disposing state of mind out of love and affection for defendant No.2, in the presence of attesting witnesses Harnek Singh and Jora Singh, and scribed by one Mohinder Singh.
The Legal Framework on Proof of Wills
Justice Aggarwal first addressed the scope of second appeal. In Punjab and Haryana, second appeals are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC 157, Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR v. Ram Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC 317, and Satender and others v. Saroj and others, 2022 (12) Scale 92, the Court held that no question of law was required to be framed before proceeding to examine the appeal.
On the substantive question of Will proof, the Court reiterated that the onus lies on the propounder. Execution must be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443, and extracted at length the principles from Shivakumar and others v. Sharanabasappa and others, (2021) 11 SCC 277.
Those principles, as quoted by the Court, require that where a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder must “remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator.” A suspicious circumstance is one that is “not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation.” Suspicious features must be real and germane, not merely the fantasy of a doubting mind. Crucially, suspicion cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind and signature alone.
Why the Will Failed Scrutiny
Justice Aggarwal identified several independent suspicious circumstances, each of which the propounder failed to dispel.
The attesting witness contradicted himself. Jora Singh, one of the two attesting witnesses, was examined as DW5 at the age of 95. While he stated in examination-in-chief that Gursewak Singh had executed the Will and identified his signatures, his cross-examination told a different story. He admitted he had no relation with either Gursewak Singh or Jagwinder Singh, that he was not on visiting terms with Gursewak Singh, and that he did not know Gursewak Singh's age at the time of his death. He also stated that he had first seen the original Will only in court when he tendered his affidavit. The Court found his testimony untrustworthy.
The original Will was never produced. DW6, the son of the scribe Mohinder Singh, produced only a photocopy of the Will and offered no death certificate for his father. DW1, a Naib Sadar Kanungo, deposed that the Will had been registered on 11 March 1993 but was not in the revenue record and could not be traced. No police report was filed about its loss. The Court noted the contradiction: DW5 Jora Singh said he had seen the original Will in court, while the revenue witness said it could not be found. The Court concluded that the story of the Will being lost was concocted.
The Will was registered after the testator's death. Gursewak Singh died on 1 June 1992. The Will was registered on 11 March 1993. DW4 Sukhdev Singh stated that Gursewak Singh had himself got the Will registered — a physical impossibility. The Court found this to be a glaring inconsistency.
The beneficiary was four years old. The Will stated that defendant No.2 had been serving Gursewak Singh, which was the reason for the bequest. Defendant No.2 was born on 19 August 1979, making him approximately four years old when the Will was allegedly executed on 23 February 1984. The Court observed that it was not understood what service a four-year-old child could have rendered to justify the bequest.
The testator was only 32 years old. Gursewak Singh was approximately 30 to 32 years old at the time of the alleged execution. The Court noted that it is not normal for a person of that age to execute a Will, and that this in itself was a suspicious circumstance.
Daughters were not mentioned. The Will stated that Gursewak Singh had no son, but made no mention of his daughters. The Court held that where a testator deviates from the natural line of succession, reasons must accompany the deviation. The absence of any reference to the daughters, and the absence of reasons for excluding them, amounted to a further suspicious circumstance.
The execution venue raised questions. DW5 Jora Singh stated that the Will was executed at the house of Balwinder Kaur, the sister of Gursewak Singh. The Court found it unexplained why the sister did not attest the Will, and why Jora Singh — who had no relationship with Gursewak Singh and was not on visiting terms with him — was chosen as an attesting witness.
Taken together, the Court held that all these circumstances were required to be dispelled by the propounder, and he had failed to do so. Both the trial court and the first appellate court had therefore correctly discarded the Will and decreed the suit.
Limitation Argument Rejected
Defendant No.2 argued that the suit was barred by limitation. He pointed out that mutation No.2833 was sanctioned on 4 April 1994, whereas the suit was filed on 6 February 2014 — nearly 20 years later. The Court rejected this contention. It held that the cause of action would arise from the date of knowledge, and that for a suit for possession, the limitation period is 12 years. The lower courts had rightly held that the suit was not barred by limitation, and the High Court agreed.
Outcome
Justice Vikram Aggarwal dismissed RSA No.2630 of 2025 on 12 May 2026, finding it devoid of merit. The concurrent findings of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul, in its judgment and decree dated 22 November 2018, and of the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, in its judgment and decree dated 28 October 2024, were affirmed. The Will dated 23 February 1984 and mutation No.2833 dated 4 April 1994 stand declared illegal, null and void. The plaintiff Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur and defendant No.4 Kiranpal Kaur Nagra are entitled to the suit property as legal heirs of Gursewak Singh. All pending applications in the second appeal were disposed of.