Validity of Will in Family Property Dispute: Supreme Court Restores Lower Court Judgment

The case of Dhanpat v. Sheo Ram & Ors. revolves around a dispute regarding the validity of a Will executed by Chandu Ram in favor of his grandsons. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Will dated April 30, 1980, was validly executed or whether it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances that warranted its rejection.

The High Court had overturned the concurrent findings of fact by both the trial court and the first appellate court, ruling that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. However, the Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence, reinstated the decision of the lower courts, holding that the Will was legally executed and valid.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose over the property of Chandu Ram, who had allegedly executed a Will in favor of his grandsons. His son, Sheo Ram, challenged the validity of the Will, claiming that it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. He sought a declaration that he, along with his mother and sisters, were rightful owners of the property.

The trial court, after analyzing the evidence, upheld the Will’s validity, ruling in favor of the defendants. The first appellate court also affirmed this decision. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these findings and held that the Will was not properly attested and contained suspicious circumstances.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
• Whether the execution of the Will was valid under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.
• Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Dhanpat & Ors.)

The petitioner contended that:

• The Will was duly executed in the presence of attesting witnesses, fulfilling the requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.
• There was no evidence of coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation.
• The testator had executed the Will out of his free will, and it was attested by two witnesses.
• The High Court erred in overturning concurrent findings of fact without sufficient justification.

Arguments by the Respondents (Sheo Ram & Ors.)

The respondents countered that:

• The Will was not properly attested as per the legal requirements.
• The exclusion of the testator’s wife and another son from the Will raised serious suspicions about its authenticity.
• One of the attesting witnesses was not produced in court, further weakening the case of the propounders.
• The High Court correctly identified discrepancies in the Will and rightly set aside the lower court judgments.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the legal provisions governing the execution of Wills. It held:

“The execution of the Will was proved by the testimony of one attesting witness, as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court erred in rejecting the Will on the ground that the second attesting witness was not examined.”

The Court further observed:

• Merely because some legal heirs were excluded from the Will does not make it suspicious, as a testator has the right to distribute his property as he wishes.
• The attesting witness who was examined confirmed that the testator signed the Will in his presence and in the presence of another witness.
• Secondary evidence was permissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act since the original Will was lost.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that:

• The High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
• The Will was duly executed and valid under law.
• The judgment of the first appellate court was restored, and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces key principles of succession law:

• A Will must be examined based on legal requirements, not on subjective assessments of fairness.
• Courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a glaring legal error.
• Secondary evidence is admissible when the original document is lost, provided due execution is proved.

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the testator’s right to distribute property according to his wishes while ensuring that Wills are not set aside without strong legal grounds.

Petitioner Name: Dhanpat.
Respondent Name: Sheo Ram (Deceased) Through LRs. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Punjab and Haryana.
Judgment Date: 19-03-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Dhanpat vs Sheo Ram (Deceased) Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category