In a landmark judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023, the Supreme Court of India affirmed that the mere registration of a Will does not confer its validity. The bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal delivered the ruling on 2 January 2025, dismissing an appeal filed by Leela and her sons, who sought to uphold a disputed Will against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Madras High Court.
The judgment highlights the importance of proving not only the execution of a Will but also its genuineness, free from suspicious circumstances, in compliance with the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act.
Case Background
The case revolved around the estate of Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar, who had divided his properties through a partition deed on 4 December 1989. This deed allotted properties among his first wife, children from that marriage, and himself. Following his death in 1991, the children from his first wife filed a partition suit (O.S. No. 142/1992) seeking their 5/7th share of the properties.
Leela, the deceased’s second wife, and her two sons opposed this claim, asserting that the deceased had executed an unregistered Will on 6 April 1990, which bequeathed all his properties to them. The respondents challenged the authenticity of the Will, claiming it was shrouded in suspicious circumstances.
Both the trial court and the High Court rejected the validity of the Will, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
1. Validity and Genuineness of the Will:
The appellants contended that the Will was executed in compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court examined whether the procedural and substantive requirements were fulfilled.
2. Suspicious Circumstances:
The Court considered whether the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will raised sufficient doubts to render it invalid.
3. Compliance with Legal Requirements:
The Court scrutinised whether the execution of the Will adhered to the statutory requirements, particularly regarding attestation and the testator’s understanding of the document.
4. Role of the Beneficiaries:
The Court analysed whether the involvement of the beneficiaries in procuring or preparing the Will contributed to its invalidation.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified several factors that cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the disputed Will:
Contradictions in the Testator’s Health
The Will contained contradictory statements regarding the health of the testator. One part stated that he was “in full conscious, with good memory,” while another indicated that he was suffering from heart disease and under treatment. The Court noted that these conflicting statements undermined the claim that the testator was in a sound disposing state of mind.
Involvement of the Beneficiaries
Leela, a key beneficiary of the Will, claimed no role in its preparation. However, the evidence showed that the stamp papers used to draft the Will were purchased in her name. This contradiction suggested active involvement on her part, a fact she had sought to conceal.
Execution in a Different Location
The Court found it suspicious that the Will was allegedly executed in Madurai, while the testator resided in Tenkasi. Leela admitted that she was unaware of her husband’s intention to execute the Will in Madurai. The Court questioned why the testator, in poor health, would travel to a distant location to execute the document.
Non-Matching Signatures
The signature of the testator on the disputed Will did not match his signature on the 1989 partition deed. This inconsistency further weakened the credibility of the Will.
Lack of Independent Evidence
The appellants produced one attesting witness, who was Leela’s brother, to support the execution of the Will. The Court noted that his testimony was insufficient to establish that the testator understood the contents of the document and executed it voluntarily. The absence of the scribe or other independent witnesses added to the suspicions.
Absence of Declaration of Reading
The appellants claimed that the notary public read out the contents of the Will to the testator. However, the Court noted that the Will lacked any declaration stating that it had been read and explained to the testator, further undermining its validity.
Concealed Procurement of Stamp Papers
The stamp papers on which the Will was typed were purchased in Leela’s name, despite her claims of non-involvement. This fact, combined with the execution of the Will in Madurai, raised questions about the circumstances surrounding its preparation.
The Court stated: “The mere act of executing or registering a Will cannot, by itself, eliminate suspicions. The genuineness of the Will must inspire confidence, and suspicious circumstances must be adequately explained.”
Court’s Decision
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to dispel the doubts surrounding the Will. The Court concluded that the lower courts were correct in rejecting the Will as invalid, as the execution did not comply with the standards prescribed under Indian law.
The appeal was dismissed, and the properties were ordered to be distributed in accordance with the 1989 partition deed, with 5/7th allocated to the children from the first marriage and 2/7th to Leela and her sons.
