Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Will in Haryana Land Dispute: State of Haryana vs. Harnam Singh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 November 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6825 of 2008
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a High Court, in a second appeal, overturn the concurrent findings of a Trial Court and a First Appellate Court on the genuineness of a Will? This was the core question before the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Harnam Singh. The dispute arose over the inheritance of agricultural land in Haryana, where the State claimed the land through escheat (where property reverts to the state due to lack of legal heirs), while a claimant asserted ownership based on a Will. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the limits of a High Court’s power to interfere with factual findings in a second appeal.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over agricultural land in Kurukshetra, Haryana, previously owned by one Kishan Singh. Upon Kishan Singh’s death on January 15, 1975, a dispute arose regarding the mutation (transfer of title) of his land. Harnam Singh, who was not a blood relative but claimed to be the caretaker of Kishan Singh, asserted his right to the land based on a Will allegedly executed by Kishan Singh on December 10, 1974. This Will purportedly bequeathed all of Kishan Singh’s self-acquired properties to Harnam Singh.

The authorities initially mutated the land in favor of Harnam Singh based on the Will. However, the Assistant Collector later rejected the mutation, disbelieving the Will’s authenticity, and mutated the land in favor of the State of Haryana under the doctrine of escheat. Consequently, Harnam Singh filed a suit on May 29, 1978, seeking a declaration that the mutation in favor of the State was invalid and that he was the rightful owner of the land, along with a permanent injunction restraining the State from alienating the property.

The suit also included Kishan Singh’s nephews (sons of his paternal cousin brothers) as defendants, following the rules of succession. These nephews were Diwan Singh, Sohan Singh, and Kehar Singh. However, they were later removed from the array of parties in the First Appellate Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed Harnam Singh’s suit on October 22, 1981, stating that the Will was not genuine. The court noted that the Will did not specify the land’s details, was not written or attested by people close to the deceased, and the witnesses were chance witnesses.

The First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision on July 20, 1982, agreeing that the Will’s execution was not proven. The court found that the thumb impressions on the Will were not proven to be of the deceased, the scribe was not a licensed petition writer, and the attesting witnesses were not connected to the deceased.

The High Court, however, in a second appeal, formulated a question of law that was based on a question of fact: “Whether the will alleged to have been executed by Kishan Singh is genuine or it could be disbelieved by both the Courts below, which has been proved as per the provisions of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.” The High Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the Will was proven under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The High Court emphasized the testimony of the scribe and two attesting witnesses, noting their independence and the testator’s sound state of mind.

Legal Framework

The central legal provision in this case is Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which outlines the requirements for the valid execution of an unprivileged Will. The provision states:

“63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.—Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules: —
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.”

This section mandates that a Will must be signed or marked by the testator, or by someone in their presence and direction, with the intention of giving effect to the Will. Additionally, the Will must be attested by at least two witnesses, who must either see the testator sign or receive a personal acknowledgment of the signature.

Arguments

The primary argument of the State of Haryana was that the High Court erred in overturning the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the genuineness of the Will. The State contended that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence and found the Will to be unreliable. The State argued that the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, should not have delved into a detailed factual inquiry, especially when the lower courts had already disbelieved the witnesses.

The legal heirs of Harnam Singh, on the other hand, argued that the High Court was correct in finding that the Will was proved in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. They contended that the witnesses, including the scribe and two attesting witnesses, had testified to the sound state of mind of the testator and the due execution of the Will. They also argued that the High Court rightly pointed out that the non-registration of the Will does not invalidate it if other evidence proves its genuineness.

The legal heirs of late Kishan Singh (defendant nos. 2 to 4) also contested the appeal, arguing that they were not informed about the suit and that their rights under Sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, should be considered. They claimed that the land should rightfully devolve upon them as the legal heirs of Kishan Singh.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the core issue of whether the High Court was justified in overturning the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the genuineness of the Will. The key issue was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the factual findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to explain the requirements for a valid Will. However, the court did not cite any specific case laws in its judgment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the authorities as follows:

✓ Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: The Court referred to this section to highlight the requirements for a valid will. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in concluding that the will was proven in terms of this section, as the lower courts had disbelieved the evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a High Court should not interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless there is a perversity in the findings. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had disbelieved the witnesses and found the Will unreliable, and the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence. The Court’s focus was on maintaining the integrity of the judicial hierarchy and the finality of factual findings by the lower courts.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations or philosophical principles. The decision was based on a strict interpretation of the procedural law and the principle of judicial hierarchy. The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of the evidence, stating that the High Court should not have re-evaluated the factual findings of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence and overturning the factual findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s role in a second appeal is limited to questions of law and not questions of fact.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The High Court took a view different from that of the fact finding Courts and held: -“

“Thus, the High Court erred in formulating the question of law on the basis that the Will was proved in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In fact, both the fact-finding Courts -the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, had found that the Will was not proved.”

“We are of the opinion that an enquiry of such nature was impermissible while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

Key Takeaways

• Limits of High Court’s Power: The judgment reinforces the principle that a High Court cannot overturn concurrent factual findings of lower courts in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless there is a perversity in the findings.
• Importance of Lower Courts’ Findings: The decision emphasizes the importance of the factual findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. These findings should not be lightly overturned by higher courts.
• Validity of Wills: The judgment highlights the importance of proving the validity of a Will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The evidence must be reliable and inspire confidence in the courts.
• Rights of Legal Heirs: The Court clarified that the legal heirs of Kishan Singh (defendant nos. 2 to 4) have the option to pursue their claims in a separate action.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court also clarified that it would be open to the legal representatives of the original defendant nos. 2 to 4 to bring an appropriate action to pursue their claim over the subject land under the doctrine of escheat.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless there is a perversity in those findings. This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial hierarchy and the finality of factual findings by the lower courts. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

In State of Haryana vs. Harnam Singh, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court regarding the genuineness of a Will. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating factual evidence in a second appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts should not interfere with the factual findings of lower courts unless there is a clear perversity and also clarifies the limits of the High Court’s power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case also leaves open the option for the legal heirs of the original defendant nos. 2 to 4 to pursue their claims in a separate action.