SC upholds Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order declaring wife owner of deceased's land

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order declaring a deceased man's wife the rightful owner of his land, saying the non-disclosure of her status or the reason of her disinheritance in the will ought not to be examined in light of facts of the case.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the challenge to the High Court’s order that declared the wife as the owner.

The top court’s order came on appeals filed by one Gurial Singh (dead) against the common judgment and decree dated November 13, 2009 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declaring the 1st respondent Jagir Kaur (dead) as the owner and in possession of the suit land.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Bagchi noted after the man died in November 1991, his nephew filed a suit by propounding a will executed by his uncle in May 1991 bequeathing the land to him.

The trial court declared the May 1991 will as genuine and by virtue of it, the nephew of the deceased was the lawful owner of the land.

The high court subsequently overruled the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court, declaring that the wife was the rightful owner of the land.

Both claimants, the wife and the nephew of the deceased, died during the pendency of the case with legal representatives substituting them in the top court.

Unlike other documents, the bench said, when a will is propounded, its maker is "no longer in the land of living".

The court, therefore, pointed out, "This casts a solemn duty on the court to ascertain whether the will propounded had been duly proved."

The onus lay on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the court's mind all suspicious circumstances that cast a doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator, it said.

"What boils down from this discussion is that suspicious circumstance, ie, non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance in the will ought not to be examined in isolation but in the light of all attending circumstances of the case," the bench said.

It said the nephew's case was not only to propound the will in his favour, but also to deny the status of the respondent as the deceased's wife.

Calling the will "cryptic", the bench noted that the deceased bequeathed his properties to his nephew for taking his care. "However, the will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, ie, the first respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance," it added.

The Bench concluded that the trial court "erroneously" observed that the non-performance of last rites of the deceased by his wife hinted at "sour relations" between the couple.

"Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by male sapinda relations. Given this practice, first respondent (wife) not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra-indicator of indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter's lifetime," it held.