Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the validity of a will and the scope of interference by the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant, Major Singh, challenged by special leave the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in SA No.2830/80 dated July 11, 1985. The respondents were Rattan Singh (since deceased, through legal representatives) and others. The litigation arose from a suit for declaration filed by the respondents on the basis of a will executed by Daulat Singh on January 11, 1974, under Exhibit PA, bequeathing his property to his brother Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh died on January 19, 1974. The parties were connected through family relationships; Daulat Singh and Rattan Singh had three sisters, Rallo, Dayal Kaur, and Inder Kaur. Dayal Kaur had got the properties mutated to the extent of one-third share for each sister in mutation proceedings. Subsequently, the respondents filed the suit for declaration based on the will. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In second appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court could not interfere under Section 100 CPC because the suspicious features surrounding the will were questions of fact which the trial court and appellate court had already considered. It was the duty of the propounder of the Will to establish that the Will was validly executed by removing all suspicious features and satisfying the conscience of the court. The Supreme Court noted that the execution of the will was not disputed. The only question was whether the will was executed in normal circumstances. The lower courts had relied on two suspicious features: the will was not produced at the earliest point of time, and the attesting witnesses were disbelieved. Hari Singh was disbelieved because he had not disclosed the will when mutation was effected in his presence, and Gurdev Singh was disbelieved because he had filed a suit in litigation against Jeet Singh. The High Court examined these reasons and found them flimsy. It perused the original and photocopy of the will and found no interpolation. It held that the rejection of the attesting witnesses' evidence was not correct. The Supreme Court reasoned that when lower courts rejected evidence on flimsy grounds, the High Court necessarily had to go into that question to test the reasons. Thus, a substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's approach and held that the High Court rightly considered the question. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Substantial Question of Law - High Court's power to examine sustainability of lower courts' reasons - The trial court and first appellate court had dismissed a suit for declaration based on a will, relying on suspicious features such as delayed production of the will and disbelief of attesting witnesses; the High Court perused the original will, found no interpolation, and held that the lower courts' reasons were flimsy; the Supreme Court held that when lower courts reject evidence on flimsy grounds, a substantial question of law arises and the High Court is justified in interfering under Section 100 CPC - Held that the High Court rightly considered the question and the appeal was dismissed with no costs. B) Succession - Proof of Will - Duty of Propounder - Removal of Suspicious Features - The propounder of a will must establish its valid execution by removing all suspicious features and satisfying the conscience of the court - The lower courts had disbelieved attesting witnesses Hari Singh and Gurdev Singh on collateral grounds, namely non-disclosure of the will during mutation and involvement in a separate litigation; the High Court found these reasons not sustainable and held that the original will had no interpolation; the Supreme Court agreed that the rejection of the attesting witnesses' evidence was incorrect - Held that the will was validly executed and the suspicious features did not warrant rejection.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could interfere under Section 100 CPC when the suspicious features of a will were treated as questions of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, and whether a substantial question of law arose in the second appeal.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that a substantial question of law arose and that the High Court rightly considered and allowed the second appeal.
Law Points
- High Court can interfere under Section 100 CPC when lower courts' reasons are flimsy
- substantial question of law arises if findings on suspicious features of will are perverse
- propounder of will must remove all suspicious features and satisfy judicial conscience
- attesting witness evidence cannot be rejected on trivial collateral grounds
- High Court may examine original will and photocopy to test interpolation
