Setting aside a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment for the second time, the Supreme Court held that a court cannot substitute valuer-assessed compensation for a decree of mandatory injunction that was never sought, cannot direct an Executing Court to 'assess' a value once the underlying decree is gone, and cannot dispose of a second appeal without actually framing and answering substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.
The Supreme Court restored concurrent findings that a 1974 will was not validly executed: where an illiterate testator's will disinherits his widow — his only Class I heir — in favour of non-relatives, carries factually incorrect recitals, and bears uninitialed cuttings that change the presenter's name on the sub-registrar's endorsement, the propounder must dispel those suspicious circumstances, and a High Court exceeds Section 100 CPC by reversing such findings of fact.