GURDIAL KAUR AND ORS. versus KARTAR KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 26-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURDIAL KAUR AND ORS. 
v. 
KARTAR KAUR AND ORS. 
~ .-
MARCH 21i, 1998 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Indian Succession Act, 1925 : 
'r -
Will-Valid execution and attestation of-Suspicious circumstances 
c about execution of will-Onus is on the propounder of will to dispel suspicious 
circumstances-Conscience· of the Court must be sqtisfied that the Will in 
question was executed and attested in the manner required-It should also 
be found that the Will was the product of the free volition of the executant-
Will in favour of the appellants-Appellate Court did not accept valid 
D 
execution of the Will indicating reasons-Specific finding that suspicion had 
not been dispelled to the satisfaction of the Court-Finding upheld by the 
High Court-Held there was no reason to interfere with such decision. 
\.-
Rani Purnima Debi and anr. v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and 
another, AIR (1962) SC 567, referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:. Civil Appeal No. 2944 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.84 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in R.S. A .No. 2995 of 1984. 
F 
Kamal Kumar Bhatia and Naveen Saxena for the Appellants. 
+ "' 
R.C. Gubrele, (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
This appeal is directed against the judgement dated November 26, 1984 
passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Appeal No. 2995of1984. 
By the impugned judgement, the High Court dismissed the said appeal by 
>.... 
which the Will stated to have been executed by one Hamam Singh in favour 
of the appellants was not accepted to be a valid one by the learned District 
H Judge in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. There is no dispute 
486 
G. KAUR v. K. KAUR 
487 
in this case that the Will in question was a registered Will and there is an A 
endorsement by the Sub-Registrar that the executant of the Will was introduced 
to him by one Puran Singh, the Lambardar of a village and the executant had 
admitted the execution of the Will in his presence and also signed in his 
presence. 
The Court of Appeal below has indicated several factors which according B 
to the learned Judge, had raised reasonable suspicion about the genuineness 
and valid execution of the said Will. It has been indicated that some of the 
natural heirs had been disinherited in the said Will without any reason for 
such action. It has also been indicated that there was not even a whisper in 
the original written statement filed by the legatees to the Will about the C 
existence of such Will in the Declaratory Suit filed against them. Only when 
one heir was left out and added as a party defendant, for the first time, in the 
additional written statement the execution of Will was mentioned. The learned 
District Judge has also indicated the reason for which he had doubted that 
the executant of the Will had been identified by the Lambardar because the 
Sub-Registrar could not say whether the Lambardar identifying the executant D 
was a Harijan Lambardar or someone else. It may also be indicated here that 
the scribe of the Will, in his deposition, stated that he did not know the 
executant of the Will. 
The law is well-settled that if there is suspicious circumstance about the 
execution of the Will, it is the duty of the person seeking declaration about E 
the validity of the Will to dispel such suspicious circumstances. In this 
connection, reference may be mad€ to the decision of this court in Rani 
Purnima Debi and another v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another, 
AIR (1962) SC 567. It has been held in the said decision that if a Will being 
registered and having regard to the other circumstances, is accepted to be a F 
genuine, the mere fact that the Will is a registered Will it will not by itself be 
sufficient to dispel all suspicions regarding the validity of the Will where 
suspicions exist. it has been held that the broad statement by witness that 
he had witnessed the testator admitting execution of the Will was not sufficient 
to dispel suspicions regarding due execution and attestation of the Will. It has 
been specifically held that registration of the Will by itself was not sufficient G 
to remove the suspicion, Relying on an earlier decision of this Court reported 
in AIR (1959) SC 443, it has been held in the said decision that where the 
propounder was unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which 
surrounded the question of valid execution and attestation of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.