The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second appeal filed by Jagwinder Singh @ Joginder Singh, upholding concurrent findings of two lower courts that rejected a disputed Will allegedly executed by deceased landowner Gursewak Singh. The Court found several suspicious circumstances surrounding the document, including the fact that the beneficiary was only about four years old when the Will was purportedly executed.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 64 Kanal 12 Marlas in Village Dialpura Bhaika, Bathinda. Plaintiff Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur claimed ownership of the property along with defendant No.4 as the legal heirs of her father, Gursewak Singh.
She challenged Mutation No. 2833 dated April 4, 1994, which had transferred the property in favour of her cousin, Jagwinder Singh, on the strength of a Will allegedly executed on February 23, 1984 and registered on March 11, 1993—nearly ten months after Gursewak Singh's death on June 1, 1992.
The plaintiff alleged that the Will was forged and fabricated, pointing out several inconsistencies, including that her father was not present in India when the Will was allegedly executed and that the document was registered only after his death. The trial court accepted her case, and the first appellate court affirmed the decree. Jagwinder Singh then approached the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal.
Court's Observations
Justice Vikram Aggarwal examined whether the Will had been proved in accordance with law and reiterated that the burden of proving a Will always lies on the person relying upon it.
The Court observed that the testimony of the attesting witness did not inspire confidence. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was not on visiting terms with the deceased and made statements that contradicted the surrounding circumstances.
The bench also found it significant that the original Will was never produced before the Court. Although permission had been granted to lead secondary evidence, the conditions imposed by the trial court were not fulfilled. Further, no satisfactory explanation was offered regarding the disappearance of the original document.
Another major inconsistency noted by the Court was that the Will was registered on March 11, 1993, despite Gursewak Singh having died on June 1, 1992. One defence witness even claimed that the deceased himself had appeared for registration, a statement which the Court found impossible to accept.
"The bench observed, 'All the aforesaid suspicious circumstances were to be dispelled by the propounder of the Will, but he failed to do so.'"
The Court also questioned the reason stated in the Will for excluding the natural heirs. According to the document, Jagwinder Singh had been taking care of Gursewak Singh. However, the evidence showed that Jagwinder Singh was only about four years old when the Will was allegedly executed.
Justice Aggarwal remarked that it was difficult to understand what kind of service a four-year-old child could have rendered to justify such a bequest. The Court further noted that while the Will mentioned that the deceased had no son, it made no reference to his daughters or any reason for excluding them from succession, adding another suspicious circumstance.
Issue of Limitation
The appellant argued that the suit, filed in 2014 against a mutation sanctioned in 1994, was barred by limitation.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court agreed with the lower courts that the cause of action arose when the plaintiff gained knowledge of the disputed Will and mutation. It also observed that a suit seeking possession is governed by a limitation period of twelve years, making the claim maintainable.
Decision
Finding no misreading of evidence or misapplication of law, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the decree declaring the disputed Will invalid and granting relief to the plaintiff remained undisturbed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jagwinder Singh @ Joginder Singh v. Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur and Others
Case Number: RSA No. 2630 of 2025 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Vikram Aggarwal
Decision Date: May 12, 2026
-300x169.webp)
