Mere Admission Of Signature On Paper Does Not Amount To Admission Of Will; Must Be Proven That Testator Was Aware Of Its Contents: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that mere admission of signatures on a paper does not amount to admission of Will; in order to prove that the Will was executed by the testator, the propounder has to lead evidence of unimpeachable character."

Justice Pankaj Jain said, "Mere admission of signatures on a paper does not amount to admission of Will... Will in law is a unique document which speaks after the death of testator. The judicial conscience needs to be satisfied that testator signed the WILL being aware of its contents. In order to prove that the Will was in fact executed by the testator, the propounder has to lead evidence of unimpeachable character."

The Court further said that the attesting witness must satisfy judicial conscience that he saw the testator signing the will, being aware of its contents.

These observations were made while hearing a plea challenging the order passed by the ADJ Court in 2014, whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking a letter of administration on account of Will dated 26.01.1990 executed by the petitioner's father, Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal stands declined.

The appellant propounded an unregistered Will dated 26.01.1990, claiming that the same was executed by his father late Col. Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal and was witnessed by Inderpal Singh Waraich and one Malkiat Singh. In order to prove the Will, Malkiat Singh was examined as a witness.

After examining the evidence on record, the Lower Court came to the conclusion that apart from suspicious circumstances, witness Malkiat Singh- the alleged contesting witness to the Will has not come out with the true version.

The Court found that even though in his examination-in-chief, Malkiat Singh claimed to have seen the Will having been executed in terms of Section 63(c) of The Indian Succession Act, 1925, but his cross-examination demolished the version spelled out in the examination-in-chief.

It listed numerous facts, including the false testimony of Malkiat Singh regarding the death of the wife of executant Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal, namely, Pritam Kaur. He was also caught testifying in contradiction to his testimony in the earlier case in Civil Court at Patiala.

After examining the submissions, the Court referred to Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which states "Petition for probate" and referred to Apex Court's ruling.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Kavita Kanwar vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors., 2020 to underscore that an unfair disposition of property or an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs, particularly the dependants, is regarded as a suspicious circumstance.

Justice Jain highlighted that the Attesting witness needs to be trustworthy and truthful. In the present case, it has come on record that the attesting witness Malkit Singh, has been found to be untrustworthy.

"It has been proved on record that he has been changing his version as per his convenience. The other attesting witness was not examine," added the Court.

Consequently, the Court opined that the "testimony of Malkiat Singh is enough to demolish the case of the appellant. It does not meet the standard required."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate and Mr. Varun Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Puneet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manmeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Title: Rajinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal v. General Public and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 97

Click here to read/download the order