The Supreme Court on Tuesday brought closure to a long-running family dispute from Kerala, restoring a 1988 registered will and overturning judgments that had ordered partition of a father’s property among his children. Sitting in New Delhi, the bench held that the will had been properly proved and should not have been discarded on what it called strained readings of witness testimony.
Background
The case revolved around the estate of N.S. Sreedharan, who executed a will on March 26, 1988, distributing his properties among eight of his nine children. One daughter was excluded, reportedly because she had married outside the community. The will was registered the very next day, with the Sub-Registrar visiting the testator’s residence.
Soon after, one of the sons filed a simple injunction suit in 1990 to protect possession of the property. A copy of the will was produced then, but the daughter did not contest the case. It was only in 2011-over two decades later-that she approached the civil court seeking partition, arguing that the will had not been legally proved.
Both the trial court and the Kerala High Court accepted her plea, disbelieving the will mainly due to gaps in the testimony of one surviving attesting witness.
Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeals filed by two of the brothers, the Supreme Court took a closer look at the evidence of the attesting witness, examined nearly 24 years after the will was executed. The bench noted that minor confusion about dates or visits was natural after such a long gap.
“The witness clearly spoke about the presence of the testator, himself, and the other attesting witness, and about all of them signing the will,” the bench observed, rejecting the High Court’s view that answers elicited during cross-examination carried less value.
The judges also stressed that courts should not sit in judgment over the personal reasons of a testator. As the bench put it, the court cannot “put the testator in our shoes,” and fairness in distribution is not the test when a valid will exists. The focus, it said, must remain on whether the legal requirements for executing a will were met.
Importantly, the Court found no serious suspicious circumstances around the testator’s mental or physical capacity at the time of execution.
Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court and trial court judgments, upheld the 1988 will as duly proved, and dismissed the partition suit. The excluded daughter, the Court ruled, has no claim over the properties that were validly bequeathed to her siblings under her father’s last will.
Case Title: K. S. Dinachandran vs. Shyla Joseph & Others K. S. Dinachandran
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11057–11058 of 2025
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Will / Partition Dispute)
Decision Date: December 17, 2025