In a significant ruling on the law governing wills, the Supreme Court has held that merely proving the formal execution of a will is not enough when serious suspicious circumstances surround its execution. Restoring the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Bench ruled that the alleged will relied upon by the defendants failed to inspire judicial confidence and could not defeat the widow's inheritance rights.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after Bhambo Devi, widow of Chhajju Ram, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of her late husband's property. She contended that Chhajju Ram had died intestate (without leaving a valid will) and that, being his only Class I legal heir and having no children, she alone was entitled to inherit his estate.
The defendants, however, relied on a registered will dated November 6, 1974, claiming that Chhajju Ram had bequeathed all his movable and immovable property to them because they had cared for him and his wife. Based on the will, revenue records had been mutated in their favour.
The Trial Court rejected the will after finding several suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The First Appellate Court affirmed that view. However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a second appeal, reversed those findings and upheld the will. Sardari Lal, the legal representative of the original plaintiff, then approached the Supreme Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court explained that proving a will involves more than establishing signatures and attestation under the law. The propounder of a will must also satisfy the court that the document genuinely reflects the free and informed wishes of the testator.
The Bench observed:
"Proof of will is not just an exercise to prove the signature of the testator... it is an exercise to satisfy the Court's conscience that the testator had signed the Will with free will."
The Court found that several suspicious circumstances identified by the lower courts remained unexplained.
One of the major concerns was that the will completely excluded the testator's wife, who had admittedly cared for him throughout his life, in favour of persons who were not his natural heirs. Although the will stated that she already possessed sufficient jewellery and cash, the Court found this explanation inadequate and unsupported by evidence.
The Bench also noted that the will incorrectly described the beneficiaries as the testator's nephews, a relationship that could not be established through evidence. Further, one beneficiary was still a student when the will was allegedly executed, making the claim that they had long rendered valuable services to the testator doubtful.
Another circumstance that troubled the Court was the timing of the will. It had been executed in 1974, yet the testator lived until 1992. No convincing reason was shown as to why such a will was made so many years before his death, especially when there was no evidence that he was ill or dependent on the beneficiaries at that time.
The Bench also attached importance to unexplained alterations made on the reverse side of the registered will. The name "Laxmi Kant" had been cut and replaced with "Chhajju Ram" in several places during the registration endorsement, but these corrections were never initialled by the Sub-Registrar.
"The uninitialed cuttings at the back of the Will raise a serious doubt as to who presented the Will for its registration," the Court observed.
High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court held that whether suspicious circumstances exist around a will and whether they have been satisfactorily explained are essentially questions of fact.
Since both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had carefully evaluated the evidence and concluded that the suspicious circumstances remained unexplained, the High Court ought not to have reappreciated those factual findings while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Bench held that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of a second appeal by overturning concurrent findings that were neither perverse nor irrational.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The Court held that the disputed will had rightly been discarded because the defendants failed to remove the genuine doubts surrounding its execution. Consequently, the widow's entitlement to the property stood restored. No order was passed as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10990 of 2016
Judge: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Decision Date: July 6, 2026
-300x169.webp)
