JASWANT KAUR versus AMRIT KAUR & ORS.

JASWANT KAUR versus AMRIT KAUR & ORS.

The propounder of the will failed to discharge the heavy onus of removing suspicious circumstances regarding the will’s execution; evidence led did not explain the late discovery of the will, use of strangers as attesting witnesses, absence of mention of close relatives, and exclusion of the plaintiff without basis. The High Court erred in not applying the correct burden of proof and accepting the will as genuine without dealing with suspicious circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Jaswant Kaur; Respondent 1: Amrit Kaur; Respondent 2: Gobinder Singh; Respondent 3: Surinder Singh; Respondent 4: Gopal Inder Singh; Respondent 5: Palvinder Kaur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 October 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Regular First Appeal No. 315/64
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside and trial court's judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Wills, Proof of Will, Burden of Proof, Suspicious Circumstances
Succession Law Wills Proof of Will Burden of Proof Suspicious Circumstances

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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaswant Kaur

Appellant

Amrit Kaur

Respondent 1

Gobinder Singh

Respondent 2

Surinder Singh

Respondent 3

Gopal Inder Singh

Respondent 4

Palvinder Kaur

Respondent 5

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Regular First Appeal No. 315/64

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will allegedly executed by Sardar Gobinder Singh in 1945 was duly proved and genuine
  2. 2 Whether suspicious circumstances attached to the execution and discovery of the will have been explained by the propounder

Ratio Decidendi

The propounder of the will failed to discharge the heavy onus of removing suspicious circumstances regarding the will’s execution; evidence led did not explain the late discovery of the will, use of strangers as attesting witnesses, absence of mention of close relatives, and exclusion of the plaintiff without basis. The High Court erred in not applying the correct burden of proof and accepting the will as genuine without dealing with suspicious circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside and trial court's judgment restored.

Orders

  • Trial court decree restored granting appellant a one-half share in the properties of the deceased Sardar Gobinder Singh.
  • Appellant entitled to recover costs of the appeal and of the High Court from the respondents.