(O&M) Champa v. Nitya Nand and Ors

IN T

Champa

Nitya Nand and

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Mr

MANDEEP PA

The appellant/defend

25.04.1991 pas judgment and d Court's rejection and set aside t defendant No. 7

17.11.1980 prop share in the esta

2.

Ag the natural-heir intestacy, the appellant/defend THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro

VERSUS Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the app r. Manuj Chadha, Advocate for th -.- ANNU, J e present Regular Second A dant No.1-Champa, challenging ssed by the learned Lower Ap decree, the lower appellate Cou n of the Will dated 05.12.1980 the trial Court's findings insof 7, Nitya Nand, and proceeded t pounded by defendant No. 7, the ate of late Singh Ram. grieved thereby as acceptance o share that defendant No. 1-Ch present Regular Second A dant No.1 – Champa.

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-1604-1991 (O&M) served on: 22.08.2025 onounced on: 28.08.2025

.....Appellant

….Respondents. DEEP PANNU pellant. he respondents. Appeal has been filed by g the judgment and decree da ppellate Court. By the impugn urt found no infirmity in the t propounded by the plaintiff Nat far as they affected the claim to accept the registered Will da ereby holding him entitled to a 1/ of defendant No. 7's Will redu hampa would otherwise receive Appeal has been preferred

ated ned trial tha, m of ated /4th uces on

3.

The the controversy:

_________

|

Chunni L

|

Siri Ram ___________

| Natha (Plaintif

4.

De Sati is not disp Natha (plaintiff) Brief Facts

5.

Fac possession claim kanals 12 marla Ram Bass, Teh late Singh Ram

6.

The executed by Sin the registered e following pedigree is not in dis : Puran Singh | _______________________________

| Lal

Bansi

| m Jagdish ____________

|

ff) Bhagat

_____________________

|

Champa

Ch

(Def. No.1) (D

N

(D

_________

|

Lala Ram O

(Def.No.3) (De fendants 3 to 6 (heirs of Sati) a puting the inheritance otherwise ), Champa (D-1), and Nitya Nan cts in brief are that plaintiff-ming 1/3rd share (144 kanals 4 s, owned by late Singh Ram, situ sil and District Mahendragarh, at Village Ram Bass, Tehsil and e plaintiff founded his title on ngh Ram in his favour (Ex. P-1) Will dated 17.11.1980 execut

spute and is necessary to appreci ________________________

|

Singh Ram

|

|

|

|

| ____________________________ |

| hand Bai

Sarti Def. No.2)

| |

| Nitya Nand

| Def. No.7)

|

| _________________________ |

| | Omkar Suriya Saraswati ef.No.4) (Def.No.5) (Def.No.6) are not central to the present lis e and the live dispute is betw d (D-7). -Natha instituted a suit for jo marlas) out of land measuring 4 uate in the revenue estate of Vill and also two residential houses d District Mahendragarh. a Will dated 05.12.1980 allege ). He also sought a declaration t ted by Singh Ram in favour

iate s as een oint age s of edly that

defendant No.7 misrepresentatio

7.

In h as a natural heir

8.

In j son, Nitya Nand by Singh Ram, with his wife,

05.12.1980 and

17.11.1980 in fa 1/4th share; thu share in the suit

9.

Rep reiterating the p

10.

On 1)

¶052)

¶173) ille pla 4) fict OP 7, Nitya Nand (Ex. DW2/1) on and is liable to be set aside. her written statement defendant r, claiming 1/3rd share left by her joint written statement of defend d), they pleaded that defendant received education from that vi served him till death. They asserted that Singh Ram execut avour of defendant No. 7 beque us, defendant No. 7 had 1/4th sh land owned by Singh Ram, as p plication was filed by the pla laint. n the pleadings, trial Court frame Whether deceased Singh

12.1980 in favour of plaintiff? O Whether Singh Ram dece

11.80 in favour of defendant No Whether Will dated 17.11 egal, fictitious, forged, based on aintiff? OPP Whether Will dated 05.12 titious, forged, illegal and prepa PD (defendant No.2 & 7).

was the product of fraud a t No. 1-Champa asserted her sta r father Singh Ram, on intestacy dants No. 2 & 7 (Chand Bai and No. 7-Nitya Nand was brought illage, resided with him and, alo denied the plaintiff's Will da ted the registered Will No. 64 da eathing his property to the extent hare and defendant No. 1 also 1/ per their stand. aintiff traversing the defence a ed the following issues:- Ram executed a valid Will OPP eased executed a valid Will o.7 OPD. .80 in favour of defendant n n fraud and void as alleged by .80 in favour of the plaintiff ared after the death of Singh Ra

atus y. her t up ong ated ated t of /4th on on no.1 f is am?

5) leg 6) stan 7) 8) are 9)

11.

In o

i) Um (att Wi

ii) Ex. dee

12.

De

i) Pra

¶17DW exp

ii) def If both the Wills are proved gal heirs of Singh Ram at the time In case Issue no.1 is not pro ndi? OPD Whether suit is not maintaina Whether suit is false and fri entitled for compensatory costs Relief. order to prove his case, plaintiff PW-1 Sardar Singh; PW-2 S mrao; PW-5 Natha Ram; PW-6 testing witnesses of the Will); PW ll) and Vijay Kumar Rastogi (Ha Exhibits: Ex. P-1 – Will date . P-3 – Jamabandi for the year 1 ed(s) of 1985; Mark E – Birth ce fendants have also led following DW-1-Nitya Nand (defenda asad; DW-3 Bishna Ram (atte

11.1980); DW-4 Matadin (attest W-8 Shri Ram; DW-9 Naresh K pert. Exhibits: Ex. DW2/1 – fendant No. 7 dated 17.11.1980

to be illegal and void who were e of his death? OPParties ved whether plaintiff has no loc able in the present form? OPD ivolous and defendants No.2 an ? OPD led the following evidence: Surjeet Singh; PW-3 Satpal; PW 6 Kanhi Ram and Chandgi Ra W-7 Bansi (attesting witness of and Writing and Finger Expert). ed 05.12.1980; Ex. P-2 – Site pl 1979–80; Mark A to Mark D – S rtificate; Mark F – Voter list. g evidence to prove their case:- ant examined himself); DW-2 Ba esting witness of the Will da ting witness); DW-5 Jagmal Sin Kataria, handwriting & fingerp Registered Will propounded 0; Ex. D-2 – School certificate

cus-nd 7 W-4 am, lan; Sale adri ated ngh; rint by

Nit – E Findings of the

13.

By dismissed the plaintiff's Will (17.11.1980) an natural heirs, m share each in the

14.

Pla decree dated 30 dated 05.12.198 Findings of the

15.

An judgment and d No. 1-Champa,

17.11.1980 is up

16.

Th findings on Issu entitled to 1/4th

17.11.1980 (Ex. plaintiff's Will had already atta

17.

Hen No.1 – Champa tya Nand; Ex. D-3 – Ration-card Expert report. e Trial Court judgment and decree dated 30 suit of the plaintiff, having d Ex. P-1 (05.12.1980) and def nd held that the property of Sin meaning thereby all three daught e suit property. aintiff-Natha did not file any

0.01.1989 and consequently, the 80 (Ex.P-1) attained finality. e Lower Appellate Court n appeal was preferred by defend decree dated 30.01.1989. The a who stood to lose from 1/3rd on pheld. he learned Lower Appellate ues 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 and held th share in the property of Singh R . DW2/1) and at the same time it dated 05.12.1980 (Ex. P-1) stoo ined finality due to lack of appea nce the present Regular Second .

d; Ex. DA – Voter List; Ex. DW

0.01.1989, the learned Trial Co discarded both the Wills i.e. fendant No. 7's Will Ex. DW ngh Ram would devolve upon ters of Singh Ram would get 1/ appeal against the judgment a e finding discarding plaintiff's W dant No. 7, Nitya Nand, against appeal was contested by defend n intestacy to 1/4th if the Will da Court reversed the trial Cou hat defendant No. 7, Nitya Nand Ram as per the registered Will da t agreed with the trial Court that od rightly discarded, a finding t al by the plaintiff. Appeal by the appellant-defend

W9/1 ourt W2/1 his /3rd Will dant ated urt's d, is ated that

18.

Up appeal. Submissions of

19.

Lea that the lower A Ram executed a Nitya Nand and submitted that circumstances. circumstances:

i) him Vil wh wa ple Bas

ii) cou wit diff

iii) cou on notice, contesting responden f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant/ Appellate Court wrongly decide a valid registered Will dated 17. d that Nitya Nand thus became Will propounded by Nitya N The appellant specifically That Nitya Nand alienated m after getting it partitioned, a llage Ram Bass. Reliance was here Nitya Nand described hims d Birth Certificate "Mark E", sh s born at Village Jonawas. From ea that Nitya Nand used to serv ss is false; he never served Singh Second suspicious circumsta unsel for the appellant/defend tnesses to Ex. DW2/1, namely fferent villages, which, according d

Third suspicious circumstan unsel for the appellant is that

nt No.1 appeared and contested lant /defendant No. 1 – Champa argu ed Issue No. 2, holding that Sin .11.1980 (Ex.DW2/1 ) in favour entitled to 1/4th share. He furt Nand is surrounded by suspici urged the following suspici property allegedly bequeathed and that he was not a resident placed on Sale Deed "Mark D elf as resident of Village Jonaw howing a male child of Nitya Na m these, it was contended that ve late Singh Ram in Village R h Ram by staying in that village. ance as pointed out by the learn dant No.1 is that both attest y Bishna and Mathura, are fr g to the appellant, creates suspici nce as pointed out by the learn the beneficiary, Nitya Nand to

ued ngh r of ther ous ous d to t of D", was, Ram ned ting rom ion; ned

acti of c

iv) des ple this

(v) con imp sup had be

20.

It i the trial Court h thumb impressi impression stoo never given suc further contende questioned, the was a separate s suit and discard considering bot defendant No.1-as held by trial C

ive part in the execution of the W coercion. Fourthly, in Sale Deed "Mar scribed himself as the adopted so ea was taken by Nitya Nand eith s inconsistency was urged as a su

It was also urged that th ncerning the thumb impressio pressions on the society record per-imposed, and that the standa d thus become doubtful, requirin discarded. is further argued that the lower had found Singh Ram to be of on in the presence of the attest d proved by the expert, is an inc ch a finding, and the lower Appe ed that maintainability of the fir appellant contending that, as d suit rather than an appeal agains ding his Will ExDW2/1. He f th Wills invalid, property must -Champa, being a daughter of Si Court.

Will, which shows Will is the res rk A" executed by Nitya Nand, on of Singh Ram, whereas no su her in the pleadings or in eviden uspicious circumstance. here existed conflicting opini ons of Singh Ram, that so taken as standard signatures w ard impressions used by the expe ng that the opinions of both expe Appellate Court's observation t sound disposing mind, affixed ting witnesses, and that the thu correct reading. The trial Court h ellate Court misdirected itself. I rst appeal by Nitya Nand was a efendant No. 7, his proper reme t a decree dismissing the plainti further submitted that in any c t devolve on the natural heirs a ingh Ram, must receive 1/3rd sh

sult , he uch nce; ons ome were erts erts that his umb had It is also edy ff's case

Submissions of

21.

Lea hand, contende impugned judgm challenged, and He further sub registered Will d found it free of objections. It i discarded and h 1/4th share in f who had no son Points for Dete

22.

Hav arise for determ A) RS ma to 1 B) DW sus

f learned counsel for the respon arned counsel for respondent N ed that defendant No.1-Champ ment and decree and it was o d Champa had admitted the plain bmitted that the lower appellat dated 17.11.1980 (Ex. DW2/1) p f suspicious circumstances after is admitted that the plaintiff's has attained finality. On merits, favour of Nitya Nand in recogni and Nitya Nand used to stay wit ermination ving heard counsel and perused ination: Maintainability/locus of ap A—whether the appeal by th aintainable when her share stand 1/4th (on Will).

Whether the lower appellate W2/1 (17.11.1980) in favour o spicious circumstances pleaded b

ndent/defendant No.1/defendant No.7, on the ot pa has no locus to challenge only the plaintiff who could h ntiff's claim before the trial Co te Court has rightly believed propounded by defendant No. 7 a discussing each of the appellan Will Ex. P-1 (05.12.1980) sta , Ex. DW2/1 records a bequest ition of his services to Singh Ra th and look after him. the record, the following questi ppellant/defendant No.1-Champ he appellant/defendant No. 1 s reduced from 1/3rd (on intesta Court rightly accepted the Will of Nitya Nand and whether by the appellant stand dispelled.

ther ave urt. nt's ands t of am, ons pa's is acy)

Point A

23.

The property of Sing Champa 1/3rd s her effective sh rights of appella competent to ma rejected and a maintainable. Point B

(i) V

24.

So concerned, it is attestation as pe the Evidence Ac of Hon'ble Sup

(1977) 1 SCC 3 are alleged, the doubts. The pr suspicious elem

25.

Lea "Mark D", whe Certificate "Mar Maintainability/Locus of ap e trial Court had dismissed th gh Ram on natural heirs, thereb share. The lower appellate Court are to 1/4th. The impugned dec ant/defendant No.1-Champa. Sh aintain the Regular Second App appeal filed by appellant/defe Validityof Will dated 17.11.198 Suspicious Circum far as law on proof of Wills s settled law that the propound er Section 63 of the Indian Succe ct, 1872. Reliance in this regard preme Court passed in the case 369, wherein it has been held th e propounder of the Will carri ropounder is required to provide ments. arned counsel for the appellant/d ere Nitya Nand gives his reside rk E" (birth of his male child at

ppellant/defendant No.1 e suit and declared devolution y giving appellant/defendant No t, by accepting Ex. DW2/1, redu cree thus adversely affects the c he is therefore an aggrieved per peal. Thus, objection to locus sta endant No.1 is held to be w 80 (Ex.DW2/1) & the Alleged stances s & Suspicious Circumstances der must prove due execution a ession Act, 1925, and Section 68 has been placed upon the judgm of Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Ka hat where suspicious circumstan ies the burden of dispelling th e a satisfactory explanation for a defendant No.1 relies on Sale D ence as Village Jonawas and B Jonawas) to argue that Nitya Na

n of o.1-uced civil rson nds well are 8 of ment aur, nces hese any eed

did not reside in there, he also suspicious circu

26.

Ho these postural in co-residence at Nitya Nand stud that he stayed w that in childho education at Vi education due to or a birth certif association and

27.

In ancillary, unless to suspicious c circumstance.

(ii)

A

28.

Th Bishna and Matu

29.

Ag this Court in the the view that constitutes a su be interested in n Village Ram Bass and hence adverts to alleged alienations umstance. wever, the lower appellate Co ndicators of residence are not det relevant times. On the contrary died at the school in Village Ram with and was brought up by Sing ood Nitya Nand remained with illage Ram Bass, and later we o lack of facilities at Ram Bass ficate records Jonawas as reside service with Singh Ram at mater Will jurisprudence, residence s they contradict proof of execut circumstances. Thus, this can Attesting Witnesses from Other he appellant stresses that both att u Ram belong to other villages, u ain, the contention is misconceiv e case of Tara Singh v. Shanti merely the witness being of spicious circumstance, in partic the plaintiff, biased against the

could not have served Singh R after partition and cited it a ourt has correctly appreciated t terminative of the fact of service y, Ex.D-2, school certificate, sho m Bass, which aligns with the c gh Ram. Even the trial Court no h Singh Ram, obtaining prim ent to a nearby village for hig . Thus, merely because a sale d ence/birthplace does not negate rial times. recitals or later alienations tion/attestation, they do not amo nnot be said to be a suspici r Villages (Bishna & Matu Ram testing witnesses to Ex. DW2/1 urging that this creates suspicion ved in law. A Co-ordinate Bench i & Ors., [PLJ 1988 p. 77], was different village does not its cular when they were not shown defendants. The Court further h

Ram s a that e or ows case oted mary gher eed are ount ous m) viz n. h of s of self n to

that the witness Will having bee genuine and las the mere fact tha itself, to discar demands is cred presence was pr There is nothing from other villa beneficiary upo witnesses were There is no cros Appellant was r not cross-exami for the appellant

iii)

30.

It w execution of the be ruled out. Th Ratnam, (2005 participation of presence of mul influence, coerc objectors to pro undue influence es being independent persons th en executed in view of the above t will of the deceased. Thus, in at an attesting witness is not from rd his testimony or to dub th dible evidence that the witness rocured by fraud/undue influenc g on record that the attesting wit age and Will is the result of co on testator. It is pertinent to examined, their statements sup ss-examination demonstrating im represented through separate cou ined any attesting witness. Thu t does not hold good.

Beneficiary's Active Pa was argued that beneficiary Ni e Will and possibility of Will bei he Supreme Court in Pentakota S 5) 8 SCC 67, authoritatively a beneficiary at the time of exec ltiple persons during the same, d cion, or fraud so as to render a W ovide substantial evidence to e.

hough from a nearly village and e facts, the Will stands proved to n view of the law laid down abo m the same village is no ground, he Will suspicious. What the l is unworthy of reliance or that ce. However, none is shown he tnesses were brought by benefici oercion or under influence used mention here that both attest port due execution and attestati mpeachment on material particul unsel before the trial Court who s, this objection of learned coun rticipation in Execution itya Nand took active part in ing result of undue influence can Satyanarayan v. Pentakota See y holds that mere presence cution or registration of Will or does not automatically imply und Will suspicious. It is necessary prove that beneficiaries exerci

o be ove, , by law his ere. iary d by ting ion. ars. has nsel nnot etha or due for

31.

The any, overbore influence/coerci there is no cros represented by witnesses in cro dominated or suspicious also f

iv)

S

32.

The described himse the suit, hence, untenable. The the adopted son Even assuming execution/attesta evidences fraud insufficient to ta

v)

33.

The the thumb impre expert were smu the opinions of t e evidence here lacks any proof the volition of Singh Ram ion in the written statement of t ss-examination by the learned c separate counsel and there i oss-examination, and no circums that the Will was fabricated falls on the ground. Sale Deed "Mark A" Recital— Plea in Suit

e appellant urges that, in Sal elf as the adopted son of Singh R this inconsistency is a suspicio validity of a Will does not hing n. The Will in question (Ex. DW the adoption recital was inaccu ation of the earlier Will. There d in the making of the Will, aint the testament. Thumb Impressions/Expert E

"Conflicting e appellant contends that there w essions of Singh Ram, that som udged or super-imposed said to the experts must be discarded.

f that Nitya Nand's participation m. There is no plea of und the appellant. Also as stated abo counsel for the appellant who w is no suggestion to the attest stance showing that the testator w d. Thus, this circumstance be Claim of "Adopted Son" vs. N le Deed "Mark A", Nitya Na Ram, but no such plea was taken ous circumstance. The argumen ge upon whether the beneficiary W2/1) predates the sale deed reci urate, it does not impeach the d is absence of proof that the rec this point remains collateral a Evidence - "Super - imposed" / g Opinions" were conflicting opinions regard me standard impressions used by be from society records, and he

n, if due ove was ting was eing o n in nt is y is ital. due cital

ding

34.

As handwriting & f DW2/1 with av impressions wer were used. The witness proof, c

35.

Cru prove execution discussed above defeat a Will w objection of the

36.

Appellate Court appellate Court sound disposing trial Court had i

37.

The appellate Court Court and recor Ex. DW2/1. E infelicitously ph independent app opinion. No pe objection also ca the lower Appellate Court ha fingerprint expert, compared the vailable standard impressions. It re unfit due to ink smudging, but e expert opinion though not a s orroborates the attesting witness ucially, attesting witnesses Bish n and attestation. The appellan e. In Will cases, imperfections in where there is credible ocular p learned counsel for the appellan w coming to the allegations of t of Trial Court's Observations, t wrongly assumed that the trial C g mind and that his thumb imp n fact discarded both Wills. e submission does not advance t undertook a full re-appraisal rded its own findings on sound Even if any stray observation hrased, the impugned decree re preciation of attesting witnesses erversity or illegality in that a annot stand and is hereby rejecte

as noticed, DW-9 Naresh Kata disputed thumb impressions on t is true that some of the stand t others were fit for comparison a substitute for mandatory attesti ses' depositions. hna and Mathura were examined nt did not cross-examine them n some comparison material do proof of execution/attestation. T nt also fails. f alleged misreading by the Low the appellant submits that the low Court had held Singh Ram to be pression stood proved, whereas e the appellant's case. The low of evidence as the first appell dness, execution, and attestation ascribed to the trial Court w ests on the lower appellate Cou s, documentary exhibits, and exp appreciation is demonstrated. T ed.

aria, Ex. dard ing-d to m as not This wer wer e of wer late n of was urt's pert

38.

It i P-1, and the pl finding has atta proceeds only o the RSA by the stands adversely No.7 Nitya Na (Ex.DW2/1) thr expert corrobo circumstances h proved by propo

39.

In fortify the app suspicion is plau Conclusion

40.

On perversity, illeg acceptance of th Singh Ram in fa in his property. have been deal stands duly prov

41.

The (05.12.1980) ha is undisputed that the trial Cour aintiff did not appeal. The low ained finality and is not open on the contest regarding Ex. DW e applicant/defendant No.1 Cha y affected by the impugned dec and, has proved the due execu rough the attesting witnesses Bis oration Naresh Kataria's repo having been dispelled by propou ounder, the Will (Ex.DW2/1), sta addition, the classic tests in J proach that once execution/att usibly dispelled, the Will must b n a comprehensive re-appraisal gality, or material irregularity he registered Will dated 17.11.1 favour of defendant No. 7, Nitya . The specific suspicious circum lt with point-wise and found to ved in accordance with law. e finding of the trial Court disc as already attained finality and re

rt discarded the plaintiff's Will wer appellate Court concurred. T n in the present RSA. This Co W2/1. Having observed above t ampa is maintainable, as her sh cree and the propounder-defend ution and attestation of the W shna and Mathura and has furnish ort and the alleged suspici under and execution and attestat ands proved on record. Jaswant Kaur (1977) 1 SCC 3 testation are proved and alleg e upheld. of the record, this Court finds y in the lower appellate Cou 1980 (Ex. DW2/1) executed by l a Nand, to the extent of 1/4th sh mstances pleaded by the appell o be without substance. The W carding the plaintiff's Will Ex. emains undisturbed.

Ex. The ourt that hare dant Will hed ous tion ged urt's late hare lant Will P-1

42.

The Lower Appellat Regular Second

43.

Pen

August 28, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe e impugned judgment and decre te Court therefore calls for no i d Appeal is dismissed. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

ee dated 25.04.1991 passed by interference in second appeal. T stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king