Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over the validity of a Will dated 30.04.1980 executed by Chandu Ram in favor of his grandsons (sons of defendant No.5 Sohan Lal). The plaintiff, Sheo Ram (son of Chandu Ram), filed a suit for declaration that he, his mother, and sisters were owners of the suit land, alleging that the Will was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and contravened Jat Customary Law. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the Will was validly executed and not surrounded by suspicious circumstances, dismissing the suit. The High Court in second appeal reversed these findings, holding that the Will was not proved as only one attesting witness was examined and the Will contained suspicious circumstances, such as not mentioning the wife and other son. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact. The Court noted that the Will was proved by examining attesting witness Maha Singh (DW-3) and scribe Advocate D.S. Panwar (DW-4), and secondary evidence was admissible under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the original was lost. The Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is limited to errors of law or procedure, not to re-appreciate evidence. The concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and could not be set aside merely because another view was possible. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decree of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Will Execution - Proof of Will - Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The court examined whether the Will dated 30.04.1980 was duly proved. The trial court and first appellate court found the Will valid based on testimony of attesting witness DW-3 Maha Singh and scribe DW-4 Advocate D.S. Panwar. The High Court set aside these findings, holding that only one attesting witness was examined and the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact, as the Will was proved in accordance with law. (Paras 7-10, 16-17)
B) Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - Admissibility - Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The original Will was lost, and the defendants produced a certified copy from the Sub-Registrar's office and a photocopy. The court held that secondary evidence was admissible under Section 65(c) as the original was lost, and the defendants were not at fault. The High Court's finding that no application for leading secondary evidence was filed was incorrect. (Paras 13-15)
C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Findings of Fact - Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to errors of law or procedure, not to re-appreciate evidence. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent findings. (Paras 11, 16-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court regarding the validity of the Will dated 30.04.1980, and whether the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 27.03.2014, and restored the decree of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the suit. The Court held that the Will was validly proved and the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact.
Law Points
- Will execution
- proof of Will
- secondary evidence
- suspicious circumstances
- concurrent findings of fact
- second appeal jurisdiction
- Section 63 Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Section 65(c) Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 41 Punjab Courts Act
- 1918
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 1960 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 22496 of 2014)
Sheo Ram (Deceased) Through LRs. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of ownership and possession of suit land, challenging the validity of a Will executed by Chandu Ram.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff (respondent) sought a declaration that he, his mother, and sisters were owners and in possession of equal shares of the suit land, and that the Will dated 30.04.1980 was invalid.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff alleged that the Will was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, contravened Jat Customary Law, and was not validly executed.
Previous Decisions
The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding the Will valid. The High Court reversed and decreed the suit.
Issues
Whether the Will dated 30.04.1980 was validly executed and proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts?
Whether secondary evidence of the Will was admissible under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (defendants): The Will was duly proved by examining attesting witness Maha Singh and scribe D.S. Panwar. The original Will was lost, and secondary evidence was admissible. The High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and interfering with concurrent findings of fact.
Respondent (plaintiff): The Will was not proved as only one attesting witness was examined, and the second attesting witness Azad Singh was not produced. The original Will was not produced, and no application for secondary evidence was filed. The Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such as not mentioning the wife and other son.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts merely because another view is possible. The Will was proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by examining an attesting witness, and secondary evidence was admissible under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the original was lost. The High Court's finding that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances was not justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The High Court has framed the following two substantial questions of law: '1. Whether the Will dated 30.4.1980 Ex.D-3 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and due execution thereof was also not proved, in accordance with the requirements of Section 63 of the Succession Act; 2. Whether the learned courts below have completely misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence available on record, particularly the Will Ex.D-3, because of which the impugned judgments cannot be sustained.'
The learned trial court held that the Will is duly proved on the basis of statement of DW-3 Maha Singh, an attesting witness, DW-4 Advocate D.S. Panwar, the scribe, DW-5 Sohan, the defendant and Krishan Kant, Registration Clerk as DW 2.
The High Court had held that only Maha Singh was examined as attesting witness as DW-3 whereas the second attesting witness Azad Singh was not produced, therefore, the Will was not proved.
Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable in the facts of the present case as the defendants asserted that the original Will is lost.
The jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration in the trial court, which was dismissed. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 63
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 65(c)
- Punjab Courts Act, 1918: Section 41
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
