Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an appeal filed against the rejection of the appellant’s petition seeking a letter of administration of his father’s will, a Single Judge Bench of Pankaj Jain, J., dismissed the appeal, reiterating that to prove that the Will was executed by the testator, the propounder had to lead evidence of unimpeachable character and the attesting witness had to satisfy judicial conscience. Since, in the present case, the attesting witness was found untrustworthy, it was enough to demolish the appellant’s case.
Background
The appellant filed a petition seeking a letter of administration on account of an unregistered Will, claiming that it was executed by his deceased father and witnessed by witnesses 1 and 2. The Civil Court, after examining the evidence and witness 2, concluded that apart from suspicious circumstances, witness 2 was untrustworthy. The Court found that even though in his examination-in-chief, witness 2 claimed to have seen the Will having been executed in terms of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 (‘the Act’), but his cross-examination demolished the version spelled out in examination-in-chief. He was also caught testifying contrary to his testimony in the earlier case.
Due to this, the Civil Court rejected the petition. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis
The Court relied on Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta, (2021) 11 SCC 209, explaining the scope of the inquiry required to be conducted while dealing with the petition under Section 276 of the Act. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court explained that ordinarily, a Will had to be proved like any other document, i.e., the test to be applied was the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. However, in the presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, the onus becomes heavier on the propounder. The Court also stated that in the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the Court, and the party that sets up the Will has to offer a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that the inquiry, as contemplated under the law, to be conducted by the Probate Court, primarily involved the satisfaction of the Court regarding compliance with Section 63(c) of the Act.
The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that mere admission of signatures on a paper amounted to admission of a Will. The Court stated that Will in law was a unique document that spoke after the testator’s death. The judicial conscience needed to be satisfied that the testator signed the Will being aware of its contents. The Court added that to prove that the Will was executed by the testator, the propounder had to lead evidence of unimpeachable character. The attesting witness had to satisfy judicial conscience that he saw the testator signing the Will being aware of its contents. Such attesting witnesses needed to be trustworthy and truthful.
The Court stated that, in the present case, witness 2 was found untrustworthy as it had been proved that he was changing his version at his convenience, and the other attesting witness was not examined. Thus, the Court held that the testimony of witness 2 was enough to demolish the appellant’s case as it did not meet the required standard.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
[Rajinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal v. General Public, FAO No. 9567 of 2014 (O&M), decided on 17-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Karan Nehra and Harvinder Singh
For the respondents: Arihant Jain, Varun Jain, Puneet Singh, and Manmeet Singh
