Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tulsi Dass vs Kishan Lal on 10 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1619-1992 (O&M)
Tulsi Dass . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Kishan Lal and Others . . . . Respondent
****
Reserved on: 07.11.2025
Pronounced on: 10.11.2025
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 5.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by one of the
defendants, Tulsi Dass, assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.08.1992
passed by the learned Addi1onal District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal filed
by the sole plain1ff Kishan Lal was allowed by se4ng aside the judgment of the
learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sirsa, dated 25.07.1990, and the plain1ff's suit for
declara1on was decreed.
2. To avoid confusion, the par1es are referred to as per their status
before the trial court.
3. Pleadings : The property in dispute was admi8edly owned by Smt.
Shan1 Devi, wife of Surja Ram, who died on 11.10.1985 leaving behind eight
natural heirs--seven sons and one daughter. One of the sons, Kishan Lal, filed
the suit seeking declara1on that he and his siblings were owners in possession
of the property in equal shares by natural succession. He further sought a
1 of 5
RSA-1619-1992 (O&M)
declara1on that the Will dated 08.08.1985 allegedly executed by Smt. Shan1
Devi in favour of three of her sons--Tulsi Das, Roshan Lal, and Rajesh
(defendants 1 to 3), was forged and fabricated, and that the consequent
muta1on No.1648 dated 23.07.1986 was null and void.
4. The defendants Nos.1 and 5 to 7 contested the suit, asser1ng that
during her life1me, Smt. Shan1 Devi had voluntarily executed the said Will out
of her own free will in favour of the three unmarried sons, who were living with
and serving her, while the remaining sons and daughter were already married
and had been provided with sufficient property. The other defendants were
proceeded ex parte.
5. Findings by Trial court : The learned trial court, aDer framing issues
and evalua1ng the evidence, held that the Will dated 08.08.1985 (Ex.D1) was
genuine, duly executed, and properly a8ested. Relying upon the tes1mony of
DW-5 Gurcharan Singh, one of the a8es1ng witnesses, the court found that the
execu1on stood proved in accordance with law. Consequently, the suit filed by
the plain1ff was dismissed on 25.07.1990.
6. Proceedings before first appellate court & its findings : Aggrieved
plain1ff preferred an appeal. Before the appellate court of learned Addi1onal
District Judge, Sirsa, during pendency of the appeal, he filed an applica1on
under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which was allowed on 24.08.1991 permi4ng
addi1onal evidence.
7. In the addi1onal evidence, the plain1ff examined Anil Kumar
Gupta, handwri1ng and fingerprint expert, who opined that the disputed thumb
impression on the Will (marked D-1) did not match the standard thumb
impressions (S-1 to S-3) of Smt. Shan1 Devi. These standard impressions were
taken from judicial records of a prior civil suit ins1tuted by Smt. Shan1 Devi and
her husband against one Jagannath. The defendants chose not to adduce any
rebu8al evidence, and their counsel made a statement that they did not wish to
lead evidence in reply to the expert's report.
2 of 5
RSA-1619-1992 (O&M)
8.1 Upon re-apprecia1ng the en1re evidence, the first appellate court
held the Will to be forged and fabricated, mainly on the basis of the expert
tes1mony. The court found that the Will was also surrounded by several
suspicious circumstances, in as much as, it was wri8en by DW-4 Har Bhagwan,
who was not a regular deed writer and had never wri8en any other document;
that the Will was unregistered though the testatrix lived for over two months
thereaDer; and the recital that some of the sons and the daughter had already
been given landed property, was false because no such evidence was adduced.
8.2 It was, therefore, concluded that the Will had not been duly
executed and that the recitals therein were untrue. Consequently, the appellate
court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit. However,
while distribu1ng the shares, it held that the plain1ff Kishan Lal and his brother
Banwari Lal were each en1tled to 1/8th share, and since defendants 5 to 7 had
supported the propounder of the Will, they would be deemed to have
relinquished their shares in favour of defendants 1 to 3, who were declared
owners of the remaining 6/8th share. The Will and muta1on were declared void.
9. Conten ons before this Court: In the present appeal, learned
counsel for the appellant argued that the first appellate court erred in
suspec1ng the genuineness of the Will merely because it was unregistered or
wri8en by a non-professional deed writer. It was contended that neither
registra1on nor scribing by a licensed deed writer is mandatory. Ld. Counsel
maintained that the a8es1ng witness DW-5 or the scribe had no reason to
depose falsely and that the expert's report was unreliable, since the standard
thumb impressions allegedly belonging to Smt. Shan1 Devi were never proved.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended
that the expert's opinion remained unrebu8ed; that the Will was surrounded by
serious suspicious circumstances, and that the false recital regarding prior
distribu1on of property clearly revealed the document to be concocted. It was
3 of 5
RSA-1619-1992 (O&M)
further urged that the finding of 'deemed relinquishment' was wholly
unsustainable.
11. This Court's Analysis : ADer hearing both sides and examining the
record, this Court is of the view that the first appellate court commi8ed no error
in discarding the Will. The propounder (s) of a Will must establish its due
execu1on and a8esta1on in accordance with Sec1on 63 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 and Sec1on 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and
where suspicious circumstances exist, they must dispel them by cogent
evidence. The principle has been consistently reiterated in H. Venkatachala
Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443), Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt.
Amrit Kaur and ors. (1977) 1 SCC 369, and Ramesh Verma (dead) through legal
representa ve v. Lajesh Saxena (dead) through legal representa ves and
another (2017) 1 SCC 257.
12. In the present case, the founda1on of the Will itself stands shaken.
The expert's report (Ex.PW-4/1) clearly demonstrates that the thumb
impression on Will Ex.D1 does not match Smt. Shan1 Devi's genuine impressions
obtained from judicial records. These standard thumb impressions, having been
taken from official court files, where she had herself appeared as plain1ff, were
presump1vely authen1c. The defendants did not controvert the existence of
those thumb impressions on the said file nor led any rebu8al evidence. Hence,
the Court finds no reason to doubt the expert opinion.
13. Moreover, the Will contains a false recital that certain heirs had
already been allo8ed property, a statement disproved by the record. The non-
registra1on of the Will, though not fatal in law, coupled with the above
circumstances and the choice of an inexperienced scribe, adds weight to the
conclusion that the document was not executed in the ordinary course.
14. Once the thumb impression itself is found to be not genuine, the
very execu1on of the Will by Smt. Shan1 Devi collapses. The first appellate court
4 of 5
RSA-1619-1992 (O&M)
rightly held that the Will was not proved and that the property devolved by
natural succession.
15. However, the appellate court fell into error in concluding that since
defendants 5 to 7 had supported the propounder (s) - defendants N: 1 to 3 of
the Will, they should be deemed to have relinquished their shares.
Relinquishment of an exis1ng share in immovable property cannot be inferred
from conduct or pleadings, as it must be effected by a registered document or a
proven family arrangement. In absence thereof, all heirs retain their statutory
en1tlement.
16. Conclusion : In view of the above discussion, this Court upholds the
finding that the Will dated 08.08.1985 (Ex.D1) and the consequent Muta>on
No.1648 dated 23.07.1986 are invalid and ineffec>ve. Nevertheless, the finding
regarding "deemed relinquishment" is set aside.
17. It is accordingly declared that upon the intestate death of Smt.
Shan1 Devi, all her eight children i.e., namely the appellant and the seven
respondents, shall inherit the suit property in equal shares of 1/8th each. The
decree of the first appellate court is modified to that extent.
18. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending
applica1ons, if any, are also disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
10.11.2025
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
