Pranav B Prem

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the mere admission of a signature on a document does not equate to the admission of a Will. The Court emphasized that a Will, being a unique document that speaks after the death of the testator, must be proven with unimpeachable evidence to establish that the testator was aware of its contents at the time of execution.

Court’s Observation on the Execution of Will

Justice Pankaj Jain, while dismissing an appeal challenging the rejection of a petition for a letter of administration concerning an unregistered Will, observed: “Mere admission of signatures on a paper does not amount to admission of Will… Will in law is a unique document which speaks after the death of testator. The judicial conscience needs to be satisfied that testator signed the WILL being aware of its contents. In order to prove that the Will was in fact executed by the testator, the propounder has to lead evidence of unimpeachable character.”

Case Background

The appeal was filed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, which declined the petition seeking a letter of administration based on a Will dated 26.01.1990, allegedly executed by the appellant’s father, late Col. Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal. The appellant contended that the Will was witnessed by Inderpal Singh Waraich and Malkiat Singh, with the latter being examined as a witness. However, the lower court found that apart from suspicious circumstances, the attesting witness Malkiat Singh failed to provide a credible and consistent version. Despite his assertion in examination-in-chief that he witnessed the execution of the Will as per Section 63(c) of The Indian Succession Act, 1925, his cross-examination exposed inconsistencies that demolished his initial claim.

Contradictions and Suspicious Circumstances

The High Court also noted that Malkiat Singh’s testimony contained contradictions, including false statements regarding the death of the testator’s wife, Pritam Kaur. He was further found to have given contradictory statements in a previous case before the Civil Court at Patiala, which were brought on record as Ex.R-1 and used to confront him.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors., 2020, the Court reiterated that an unfair disposition of property or unjust exclusion of legal heirs, particularly dependents, constitutes a suspicious circumstance. Justice Jain stated:  “Attesting witness needs to be trustworthy and truthful. In the present case, it has come on record that attesting witness Malkit Singh has been found to be untrustworthy. It has been proved on record that he has been changing his version as per his convenience. The other attesting witness was not examined.”

Legal Interpretation of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act

The Court also examined Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which outlines the procedure for obtaining probate or letters of administration. It emphasized that proving a Will involves satisfying the court that the testator was aware of its contents, and any suspicious circumstances must be dispelled by the propounder of the Will.

Referring to the evidentiary standard required, the judgment stated: “The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the Will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance/s. While applying such test, the Court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the Will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will.”

Verdict

Given the inconsistencies in the testimony of the key witness and the presence of suspicious circumstances, the Court found that the appellant failed to meet the required standard of proof. The appeal was dismissed with the Court concluding: “The testimony of Malkiat Singh is enough to demolish the case of the appellant. It does not meet the standard required.”

Cause Title: Rajinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal v. General Public and others

Case No: FAO-9567-2014

Bench: Justice Pankaj Jain

[Read/Download order]