'Normally 32-Year-Old Person Would Not Make Will': P&H High Court Rejects Will Bequeathing Property To 4-Year-Old Amid Suspicious Circumstances

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a defendant challenging concurrent findings of two courts which had declared a Will as forged and decreed a suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction raising suspicion over making of will by 32-year-old man. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 211]

Justice Vikram Aggarwal noted, "the age of Gursewak Singh at the time of execution of the Will was about 32 years. This in itself is a suspicious circumstance because normally, a 32 years old person would not make a will. Even if this fact is ignored, it was stated in the Will that defendant No.2 had been serving him. Defendant No.2 was about 04 years old at the time of execution of the alleged Will, having born on 19.08.1979. It is not understood as to what kind of service a four year old child must have been providing to Gursewak Singh, who, out of love and affection, executed the Will in favour of defendant No.2 Jagwinder Singh."

The dispute pertained to agricultural land measuring 64 Kanal 12 Marlas situated in Bathinda. The plaintiff, Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur, claimed ownership along with another legal heir as daughters of Gursewak Singh. She challenged a mutation sanctioned in favour of her cousin (defendant No.2), Jagwinder Singh, on the basis of a Will dated February 23, 1984.

The plaintiff alleged that the Will was forged and fabricated, pointing out inconsistencies including its registration after the death of Gursewak Singh and doubtful circumstances regarding its execution.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the Will had not been validly proved. The First Appellate Court upheld this finding, leading to the present second appeal.

The Will was allegedly executed when the beneficiary was only about 4 years old, raising doubts about the stated reason that he had been serving the testator.

The Court noted several suspicious circumstances, including that the Will was registered after the death of the testator, casting serious doubt on its authenticity and the original Will was never produced, and the explanation regarding its loss was found unreliable.

The attesting witness gave inconsistent and unreliable testimony and no reasons were provided in the Will for excluding natural heirs, particularly the daughters.

The Court emphasized that such circumstances required cogent explanation from the propounder, which was lacking in the present case.

Rejecting the appellant's argument that the suit was time-barred, the Court held that limitation would run from the date of knowledge. Additionally, for possession, a limitation period of 12 years applied, and the suit was within time.

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding it to be devoid of merit.

Mr. Anmol Karan S. Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Santokhwinder S. Grewal, Advocate for the appellant.

Title: Jagwinder Singh @ Joginder Singh v. Ramandeep Khimareet Kaur and others

Click here to read order