Supreme Court Upholds Will in Family Property Dispute, Overturns High Court Ruling

The Supreme Court of India has reinstated the validity of a disputed Will in the case of Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors., overturning a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had declared the Will invalid. The case revolved around a family property dispute concerning the inheritance of land left behind by the deceased, Sanjhi Ram. The Court clarified the interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and ruled in favor of the appellants.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated over the inheritance of 10 canals and 1 marla of agricultural land in Gurdaspur, Punjab, which was owned by the deceased, Sanjhi Ram. He had no children and resided with his nephew, Gopal Krishan, the appellant in this case. On November 7, 2005, he executed a Will in favor of Gopal Krishan, and he passed away the next day.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-partition-deed-rejects-disputed-will-in-family-property-dispute/

Following his death, the property was transferred to Gopal Krishan, who subsequently sold it to third parties. The respondents, who were extended family members, challenged the Will, alleging forgery and fabrication, and sought ownership of the land.

Key Legal Proceedings

• Trial Court Ruling: The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the Will “illegal,” “null,” and “void.” The court found suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will.
• Lower Appellate Court Decision: On appeal, the Additional District Judge overturned the trial court’s decision, holding that the Will was valid and executed per the law.
• High Court Judgment: The Punjab and Haryana High Court reinstated the trial court’s ruling, declaring the Will invalid due to the absence of a clear directive from the testator regarding the attestation process.

Arguments by the Appellants (Gopal Krishan & Ors.)

• The appellants contended that the Will was executed properly and in compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
• They argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the attesting witness’s testimony and that the Will should not have been rejected based on minor technicalities.
• The sale of the property was valid, as it was based on a legally executed Will.

Arguments by the Respondents (Daulat Ram & Ors.)

• The respondents claimed that the Will was forged and that Sanjhi Ram did not execute it voluntarily.
• They argued that the execution process was suspicious, with inconsistencies in spacing and signatures.
• They contended that the attesting witness failed to explicitly state that the testator had directed him to attest the document.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• “The mere reduction of space at the end of a document does not render it suspicious or fabricated.”
• “The High Court erred in interpreting Section 63(c) by imposing additional requirements beyond the statutory language.”
• “The attesting witness’s testimony was sufficient to establish that the testator executed the Will voluntarily.”
• “There was no evidence suggesting coercion, undue influence, or mental incapacity of the testator.”

Legal Principles Applied

• The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 63(c), an attesting witness must see the testator sign or acknowledge his signature but need not confirm a verbal directive from the testator.
• The Court relied on precedents such as Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan and Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Mandeo Kadam to reaffirm that procedural compliance does not require absolute perfection.
• The ruling emphasized that an appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact unless there are substantial legal errors.

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling.
• It restored the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, upholding the validity of the Will.
• The sale of the property was declared valid.
• The appeal was allowed in favor of Gopal Krishan.

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies the interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and ensures that procedural formalities do not override substantive justice. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the sanctity of properly executed Wills, preventing unnecessary legal challenges based on minor technicalities.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-restores-village-pond-land-overturns-high-court-ruling-on-revenue-records/

Petitioner Name: Gopal Krishan & Ors..
Respondent Name: Daulat Ram & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Gurdaspur, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 02-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: gopal-krishan-&-ors.-vs-daulat-ram-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-01-2025.pdf