Supreme Court upholds High Court decision in will validity appeal, dismisses additional evidence

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to reject the additional evidence in a case concerning the validity of a will. The Court found the District Judge's allowance of additional evidence unjustified, noting discrepancies indicating forgery and lack of proof of the property's ancestral nature. The plaintiff's claim lacked merit without the additional evidence, and the interpretation of the custom governing property alienation was deemed contrary to Punjab Act II of 1920. Costs were awarded to the respondents, and the District Judge's decree in favor of the plaintiff was overturned.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the will made by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant.
2. Suit for declaration of will being null and void.
3. Contestation of adoption and limitation.
4. Locus standi of plaintiff to contest the will.
5. Admission of additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27.
6. Reversal of decision by the District Judge based on additional evidence.
7. High Court's decision on the genuineness of the additional evidence.
8. Interpretation of the custom governing alienation of property.
9. Justification of admitting additional evidence.
10. Consideration of inherent infirmities in the entries of settlement registers.
11. Second appeal grounds under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute over the validity of a will made by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant, contested by the plaintiff claiming reversionary rights. The plaintiff argued that under customary law, a sonless proprietor cannot will ancestral property when collaterals exist. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge allowed additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27, leading to a reversal of the decision in favor of the plaintiff based on the relinquishment of ancestral property by a third son, Pohlo.

The High Court, however, found the additional evidence inadmissible, highlighting discrepancies indicating forgery. It emphasized that the property in question was non-ancestral, and the suit should have been dismissed under section 7 of Act II of 1920, barring contests of alienation of non-ancestral property. The High Court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the District Judge's admission of additional evidence was unjustified and failed to consider the inherent infirmities in the settlement registers. The Court agreed with the High Court's observations on the suspicious nature of the entries, rendering the findings based on the additional evidence inconclusive.

Ultimately, without the additional evidence, the plaintiff's claim lacked merit as there was no proof of the property's ancestral nature. The District Judge's decree in favor of the plaintiff was deemed erroneous, and the interpretation of the custom governing property alienation was found contrary to Punjab Act II of 1920. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

---