Supreme Court Bench Led by Justices S. Karol and J. Bagchi Upholds Consumer Rights: KSEB Cannot Escape Liability for Sudden Supply Disconnection

The Supreme Court of India very recently gave an important judgement in the matter of Gurdial Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Dead Jagir Kaur And Ors. Etc.

✖

a civil appeal that is to be adopted on July 17, 2025. This case elucidates important issues in the proving of a Will especially in cases of suspicious circumstances involved in the writing of such a Will. In his judgment, Justice Joymalya Bagchi points to the weighty responsibility of the courts to determine the authenticity of a Will and the burden to prove that the testator was exercising a free disposing mind rests with the propounder of the Will.

Facts of the Case in brief

The conflict started on the property of one Maya Singh who possessed 67 kanals 4 marlas of the land of the estate in the village Sathiala. The appellant in this case Gurdial Singh ( who is late now and his legal representative is taking the case on his behalf) was nephew of Maya Singh. The first respondent who was deceased and represented by Jagir Kaur (who claimed to be the wife of Maya Singh). The second respondent, Gurpal Singh, alleged that, he was the adopted son of Maya Singh and Jagir Kaur. The suit land was mutated in the favor of Jagir Kaur on October 27, 1992 subsequently and Maya Singh died on November 10, 1991.

Having feared the alienation of the property, Gurdial Singh instituted suit claiming to be the owner of his property through a Will allegedly signed by Maya Singh on May 16, 1991, where the land was bequeathed to him. Gurdial Singh argued that Joginder Kaur, the first wife of Maya Singh, had already pre-deceased him and Jagir and Kaur were not his legally married wife and Gurpal Singh was not their adopted son. On the contrary, the respondents also lodged another suit applying declaration that Jagir Kaur was a legal wife of Maya Singh and that Gurpal Singh was the adopted son of both.

The Trial Court struck down the suit of the respondents that Gurpal Singh was an adopted son and what was significant was that Jagir Kaur was a lawfully wedded wife of Maya Singh. The Trial Court also judged the suit of Gurdial Singh, declared the Will dated May 16, 1991 genuine, and made him, the legal owner. These findings were held by the First Appellate Court.

But in a common judgment and decree given by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on November 13, 2009, the concurrent finding of the lower courts was reversed. The High Court said that Jagir Kaur should be the owner and should be in possession of the suit land stating the substantial question of law as to the Will was duly proved. As to the Will itself regulated by the High Court, a suspicions circumstance is found: elision of Jagir Kaur, wife of Maya Singh, and failure to give her any reasons in her disinheritance: this caused the suspicion of want of free disposing mind on the part of the testator. This led to appeal on behalf of Gurdial Singh to the Supreme Court.

elemental Problems and Legal Principle

The main point of contention before the Supreme Court was that non-recital of the status of Jagir Kaur as wife of Maya Singh and omitting to include the reasons of making her disinherited in the Will was a suspicious circumstance and so the Will was void on the ground that the mind of the testator did not move freely.

The Court expressed basic legal principles of proving a Will. A Will is just like any other document and is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and requires that at least one of the attesting witnesses be examined. But, in the case of a Will, the testator is dead and therefore a solemn responsibility rests upon the Court to see that the Will had been properly proved. It is also incumbent on the propounder to demonstrate no only due execution, but to remove all questionable facts which may affect to suggest that the testator did not dispose of his property freely, but that he had his mind under influence. Only after all such doubtful contexts have been removed and the Court has been convinced that the Will testament did not have any duress or element of undue influence, it will then be accepted as valid.

The Supreme Court has taken reports to its earlier decisions in Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others

and

H Venkatachala Iyengar v BN Thimmajamma Ors.

Organizing major principles. These comprise of the fact that a proof of a Will is not mathematical with certainty but sufficient to satisfy a prudent mind. It also emphasized that a Will talks after the death of a testator, whereas the conditions under which it is brought up are particularly solemn.

Importantly, the Court said that when the execution of a Will is attended by suspicious circumstances, the case is in another position. Such cases are where the signature is wobbly, a weak mind, unjust distribution of property, or where the propounder has a prominent role and benefits immensely. In these cases, the bare statement of the propounder that the Will is signed by the testator or that he was of sane mind is not found enough to clear the suspicion. Evidence of suspicious circumstances entails a still heavier initial burden upon the propounder, who must first clear every justifiable suspicion, until the document can be admitted. Also the Court emphasized that although there might not be any pleas of fraud or undue influence, there are possibilities that the surrounding circumstances cast some doubt over free will of the testator and the removal of such reasonable doubt becomes part of the onus of the propounder at the outset.

Suspicious Circumstances analysis

The Court did a perfect scrutiny on a definition of a situation of a suspicious circumstance citing

The case of Indu Bala Bose & Ors vs. Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr. saying that, not every circumstance is a suspicious circumstance. Opposing circumstances are suspicious and said to be so when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal circumstance or it is not expected of a normal person. It was also in reference to

PPK Gopalan Nambier vs. PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar & Ors. that the presumed properties must not be an imaginary creation of doubting minds but must be “existing, relevant and viable”.

Using such principles, the Supreme Court agreed with the decision made by High Court. Although appreciating that the sole fact of a natural heir being deprived of such a natural heir may not necessarily constitute a suspicious circumstance (and that, in fact, the thrust of a Will is to interfere with what one would otherwise have been the natural line of succession), the Court referred to the following circumstances:

Ram Piari vs. Bhagwant & Ors. , where it was said, that the prudence demands a reason to disinherit natural heirs and objects and that mere absence of it though not necessarily vitiating the Will leaves the disposition in a queer light.

Supreme Court noted that the suspicious nature of the fact that the wife is not mentioned or the rationale of her disinheritance could not be establish in a vacuum but in the context of all the surrounding circumstances. The Court has singled out the twofold aim of the appellant (Gurdial Singh) who was not only keen on establishing the Will in his favor but also to deny the status of Jagir Kaur as the wife of Maya Singh. The Will, in itself, was cryptic granting property to the nephew in charge of taking care of the testator, and entirely silent as to the presence of his wife and natural successor, Jagir Kaur, and as to why she was disinherited.

There was evidence that Jagir Kaur had been living with the Deceased, Maya Singh up to the time of his death, and there was no documentation to show that they had a bad relationship. His acceptance of Maya Singh as his lawfully wedded wife was also signaled by the fact that she was nominated by Maya Singh as his nominee in his pension and she was entitled to his pension. The Court observed that it was incorrect on the part of the Trial Court to have made the additional observation that the non-performance of last rites by Jagir Kaur was indicative of bad relations as in the Hindu/Sikh family male Sapinda relations perform last rites. This peculiar oversight in the Will of even the very existence of his wife coupled with the circumstances surrounding them created a great doubt that the Will was not made as per the directives of the appellant but under his own volition.

All the appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court which endorsed the High Court decision. This failure of the testator to mention Jagir Kaur or the cause of her disinheritance in the Will was a matter of great significance to the Court which the Court described as an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was tainted by the undue influence of the appellant. This decision further cements the spirit of vindicating all incriminating circumstances in the proving of a Will especially in the case of the Natural heirs being disinherited under no strong and clear reasons. It highlights the role of the Court that it should override its judicial conscience that such will is indeed the will arising out of free and independent will of the testator.