79 square yards, two Wills: Why Punjab & Haryana HC backed the adopted daughter in a property dispute

A property dispute over 79 square yards of land in Ludhiana between two sisters is grabbing people’s attention. The matter went to the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered in favour of the older sister. The issue allegedly stems from a six-room house which is owned by a widow who adopted a daughter.

One property, two Wills- what happened

According to a report by Times of India, the woman who owned the house had two siblings– one younger sister and a brother. It is said that while both lived near her, the brother regularly visited and took care of her.

Reportedly, the elder sister, Kaur, revoked her first Will under which she planned to leave her property to her younger sister after her death. However, her brother passed away in December 2009, added the report.

It is said that Kaur later adopted her younger sister’s daughter.

In January 2010, Kaur claimed that she travelled to Phillaur to attend a function, leaving her house locked. She later alleged that her younger sister and brother-in-law entered the property in her absence and took possession of it. According to the report, both continued to live in the house, preventing her from entering her own property.

Around five months later, Kaur moved court over the issue, as per the same report.

During the course of litigation, she reportedly executed another Will on March 15, 2013, leaving the Ludhiana property to her adopted daughter after her passing.

Punjab and Haryana High Court says

Kaur reportedly died before the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s final judgment.

On July 15, 2026, the High Court ruled in her favour, upholding the later Will, making the adopted daughter the owner of the house.

Younger sister moves SC

But the legal battle took a different turn when the younger sister challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition (SLP). The matter is currently pending before the apex court.

Why the High Court upheld the second Will

The Punjab and Haryana High Court treated the dispute as one involving testamentary succession under a Will. The court found that the woman’s ownership of the property was supported by the records. However, the younger sister’s claim was based on an alleged agreement to sell that had not been established.

The High Court also upheld the validity of the woman’s later registered Will, declared the adopted daughter the rightful owner.

The case was heard by Justice Vikas Suri.

Upon reaching its decision, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew case. It delt with whether the same person can act as both the scribe and an attesting witness to a Will.

The court distinguished between a “mere scribe” and a person who acts as both the scribe and an attesting witness. A scribe is a person who drafts or writes a Will. Merely drafting a Will and signing it does not automatically make that person an attesting witness. It is important whether the person signed the document with the intention of attesting it.

In this case, an advocate who reportedly drafted the Will had also signed it as an attesting witness. The High Court found that he was not being treated as an attesting witness merely because he had prepared the document. Instead, the evidence showed that he had signed the Will in the capacity of an attesting witness while also acting as its scribe.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s January 3, 2006 judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2034 of 2003, Mathew Oommen vs. Suseela Mathew, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 519.

The judgment established that there is no legal bar on a person acting as both the scribe and an attesting witness to a Will.

The High Court said, as quoted by Times of India, “However, it is trite law that a scribe cannot be “treated” as an attesting witness to a Will. In the case at hand, the factual matrix is not that a scribe has been treated as an attesting witness. Rather, one of the attesting witnesses has also signed as a scribe.”

The High Court’s findings remains before the Supreme Court.