The Punjab and Haryana High Court has restored a trial court decree upholding a registered Will executed by a 45-year-old man, holding that neither the age of the testator nor exclusion of natural heirs can, by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed a Regular Second Appeal filed against a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Mansa, which had set aside the trial court decree recognising his rights under a Will executed by his late father in 1985.
The appellant had claimed ownership over a 1/6th share in agricultural land on the basis of a registered Will executed by his father, who died in 1986. The Will had been challenged by the appellant’s mother and sisters, who alleged that it was forged and executed when the testator was not in a sound mental condition.
The trial court had upheld the Will after examining the deed writer and an attesting witness, both of whom confirmed that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution. However, the first appellate court reversed the decree, holding that it was “unusual” for a 45-year-old person to execute a Will and observing that the Will did not mention the widow or daughters.
Setting aside the appellate court judgment, the High Court held that the reasoning was legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles governing testamentary succession.
The Court observed that Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act permits every person of sound mind and not being a minor to execute a Will, and there exists no age threshold making execution of a Will suspicious.
“A Will made in the ‘prime of life’ is less likely to be the result of a sudden impulse or the ‘faltering mind’ of old age, and more likely a deliberate, well-thought-out plan,” the Court observed.
The High Court further reiterated that exclusion of natural heirs does not automatically render a Will suspicious, relying upon Supreme Court precedents including Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan and Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy.
The Court noted that the very purpose of a Will is to alter the normal line of succession and therefore deprivation of some legal heirs cannot, without more, invalidate a testamentary disposition.
It also found that the first appellate court had ignored unrebutted testimony of the attesting witnesses and reversed the trial court findings merely on conjectures and assumptions unsupported by evidence.
Holding the appellate court findings to be “perverse,” the High Court restored the trial court decree in favour of Bhura Singh and upheld the validity of the registered Will.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Karanveer Singh with Mr. S.S. Aviraj, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Anmol Puri, Advocate.
