DHANPAT versus SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

DHANPAT versus SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

The High Court erred in law by upsetting concurrent findings of fact; the Will was duly executed and proved by the evidence of an attesting witness, the scribe and the Sub-Registrar official, secondary evidence was admissible as the original Will was lost, and exclusion of some natural heirs did not render the Will suspicious; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the decree of the First Appellate Court restored.

Parties
Appellant: Dhanpat; Respondent: Sheo Ram (Deceased) through LRs.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; decree of the First Appellate Court restored; suit dismissed.
Legal Topics
Will Execution and Attestation, Secondary Evidence Admissibility, Scope of Second Appeal Under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act, Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Wills
Succession Evidence Civil Procedure Appellate Review Will Execution and Attestation Secondary Evidence Admissibility Scope of Second Appeal Under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Wills

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhanpat

Appellant

Sheo Ram (Deceased) through LRs.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Will dated 30.4.1980 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and its execution proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872
  2. 2 Admissibility of secondary evidence (certified copy) under Section 65 of the Evidence Act where original Will is lost
  3. 3 Whether the High Court in second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in law by upsetting concurrent findings of fact; the Will was duly executed and proved by the evidence of an attesting witness, the scribe and the Sub-Registrar official, secondary evidence was admissible as the original Will was lost, and exclusion of some natural heirs did not render the Will suspicious; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the decree of the First Appellate Court restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; decree of the First Appellate Court restored; suit dismissed.

Orders

  • High Court judgment dated 27.03.2014 set aside
  • Decree of the First Appellate Court restored