The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular second appeal arising from a long-running dispute over a residential property in Ludhiana. Justice Vikas Suri held that the rules of succession applicable to a Hindu woman dying intestate could not be invoked where the deceased had left behind a duly proved registered Will.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned a 79-square-yard house in Janta Colony, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana. Harbhajan Kaur had originally executed a Will in favour of Amarjit Kaur, but that Will was later revoked through a registered Revocation Deed dated February 15, 2008.
Harbhajan Kaur subsequently executed another Will dated March 15, 2013, in favour of Gurwinder Kaur. During the pendency of the suit, Harbhajan Kaur died and Gurwinder Kaur was brought on record as her legal representative. The later Will was registered and was proved through an attesting witness.
The defendants had also relied upon an alleged agreement to sell dated November 21, 2006. However, the original agreement was not produced or proved, and no documentary evidence was brought to establish payment of Rs. 3,75,500 towards the alleged purchase.
The Trial Court subsequently granted possession and permanent injunction, while refusing mandatory injunction regarding household articles. The first appellate court affirmed that decision on April 29, 2026.
Court’s Observation on Succession Law
Before the High Court, the appellants argued that Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 should govern the property because it belonged to a female Hindu.
Justice Vikas Suri rejected the submission. The Court explained that Section 15 applies when a female Hindu dies intestate, meaning without leaving a valid Will. Since Harbhajan Kaur had executed a registered Will dated March 15, 2013, the Court held that Sections 15 and 16 were not applicable. Instead, testamentary succession was governed by Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court also examined the challenge concerning the Will’s attestation. The appellants argued that a person could not act both as the scribe and an attesting witness.
The Court clarified that there is no such legal prohibition. What matters is whether the person had the intention to attest the Will. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that “there is no bar for the said person to be a scribe as well as an attesting witness.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court found that S.L. Mahey, Advocate, had appeared as an attesting witness and supported the Will. His signatures as both scribe and attesting witness did not invalidate the document. The Court also noted that nothing material emerged from his cross-examination to undermine his credibility.
Justice Suri further held that the courts below had recorded concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, and no substantial question of law was shown to arise for consideration in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second appeal as being without merit.
