STATE OF HARYANA versus HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 25-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6825 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 25, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Succession Act, 1925: s.63 – Exection of unpriveleged Wills
– Proving of Will u/s.63 – Held: Requirement of s. 63 cannot be
fulfilled by mechanical compliance of the stipulations therein –
Evidence of meeting the requirement of the said provision must be
reliable – On facts, person claiming to be scribe of the Will as well
as the two attesting witnesses deposed to support the case of the
original plaintiff, but both the trial court and the first appellate
court disbelieved their testimony – Thumb impression of testator
was not matched – Contradiction in the evidences of attesting
witnesses as regards the place of execution – Fact finding courts
did not find such evidence to be reliable – Thus, the High Court
erred in formulating the question of law on the basis that the Will
was proved in terms of s.63 – In fact, both the fact finding courts
found that the Will was not proved – High Court formulated the
question of law on question of fact only – It went into a detailed
factual enquiry to come to its finding, though such enquiry was not
permissible while hearing an appeal u/s.100 CPC – Thus, there is
no perversity in the judgment passed by the trial court and the first
appellate court – Judgment passed by the High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The opinion of the High Court was that the Will
was proved in terms of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925
and while coming to such finding the High Court went deep into
factual inquiry. It is evident from the judgment under appeal that
the formulation of the question of law was on question of fact
only. Moreover, in formulating the question on the basis of which
the Appeal was admitted, the High Court proceeded on the basis
that the Will was proved in terms of Section 63 of the Act. The
person claiming to be scribe of the Will as well as the two attesting
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 520
520
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
witnesses deposed to support the case of the original plaintiff,
but both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disbelieved
their testimony. The thumb impression of testator was not
matched. There was contradiction in the evidences of attesting
witnesses as regards the place of execution. The requirement of
Section 63 of the Act cannot be said to have been fulfilled by
mechanical compliance of the stipulations therein. Evidence of
meeting the requirement of the said provision must be reliable.
The fact finding courts did not find such evidence to be reliable.
[Para 7][525-F-H; 526-A-B]
1.2 The High Court erred in formulating the question of
law on the basis that the Will was proved in terms of Section 63
of the Act. In fact, both the fact finding Courts-the trial court and
the first appellate court, had found that the Will was not proved.
The evidences of the witnesses were disbelieved as they failed
to inspire the confidence of fact finding courts. The High Court,
however, went into a detailed factual enquiry to come to its finding.
An enquiry of such nature was impermissible while hearing an
appeal under Section 100 CPC. The finding of the trial court and
the first appellate court ought not to have been interfered with
by the High Court. There is no perversity in the judgment of the
first two courts of facts. [Paras 7, 8][526-G-H; 527-A-B]
1.3 The question of inter-se dispute between the State of
Haryana and the defendant nos. 2 to 4-legal heirs of the testator
cannot be resolved in this appeal as fresh evidence would have
to be led to adjudicate that question and this would create a new
dispute altogether that was not addressed previously in the suit
from which the present appeal arises. There is no clear evidence
as to whether the original defendant nos. 2 to 4 had been served
summons or notice of the proceeding at the stage of trial. It would
be open to the individuals claiming to be the legal representatives
of late testator to question the claim of the State of Haryana over
the subject-land under the doctrine of escheat. [Para 9][527-D-
E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6825 of
2008.
STATE OF HARYANA v.  HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS.
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2008 of the High Court
of Judicature at Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A

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