Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, on Wednesday (December 17, 2025), set aside the High Court and trial court orders that had declined to accept a registered Will and, allowing the appeals, dismissed the partition suit filed by the testator’s excluded daughter, holding she had no partible claim in the estate. The dispute concerned proof of attestation, where the Will’s genuineness was challenged on the ground that the surviving attesting witness, in examination-in-chief, did not state that he had seen the other attesting witness sign. The Court found the omission was supplied in cross-examination and treated as usable proof, noting that answers elicited in cross-examination can cure such omissions.

The dispute arose from a suit for partition filed by one of the nine children of a deceased testator, seeking a share in her father’s estate. The father had executed a registered will in 1988, by which his properties were bequeathed to eight of his children, excluding one daughter. After the testator’s death, reliance was placed on the will by the beneficiaries to resist the partition claim.

Also Read: Prior Approval Mandatory Before ACB Probe Into Official Acts; Supreme Court Quashes Land Allotment Corruption Case Against Karnataka BJP Leader R Ashoka

The excluded child challenged the will on the ground that it was not duly proved in accordance with law. The trial court decreed the suit for partition, holding that the attestation of the will was not satisfactorily established. This finding was affirmed by the High Court, which treated certain aspects of the attesting witness’s testimony as suspicious and inadequate under the requirements of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act.

The beneficiaries under the will appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the statutory requirements for proving a will were fulfilled, that the testimony of the surviving attesting witness was sufficient, and that the concurrent findings were based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence.

The Court observed that proof of a will must conform to settled legal principles, noting that “the execution of the will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act.” It recorded that the propounder is required to establish that “the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will.”

Referring to suspicious circumstances, the Court stated that “where the execution of a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions by clear and satisfactory evidence.” At the same time, it cautioned that “proof of a will remains a question of fact and satisfaction of the conscience of the court is only a rule of prudence.”

On the evidence of the surviving attesting witness, the Court recorded that “DW-2 spoke of the presence of the testator along with himself and the other attesting witnesses as also affirmed the signature of the testator and of both the attesting witnesses in the document.” It noted that “what was lacking in the examination-in-chief was brought out in the cross examination by way of a positive suggestion.”

Rejecting the High Court’s approach, the Court observed that “leading questions are permitted in cross-examinations and the response elicited cannot be said to have lesser probative value.” Addressing alleged inconsistencies relating to dates and visits, it stated that “it would be puerile to think that the witness would have remembered the visits made to the testator’s house with mathematical precision.”

On testamentary capacity, the Court recorded that “the testator was also established to be of sound and disposing mind at the time of execution of the will.” Dealing with the exclusion of one child, the Court observed that “we cannot put the testator in our shoes, and we should step into his,” and further stated that “the wish of the testator assumes pre-eminence.”

Also Read: Accused Cannot Seek Company, Bank Records Under CrPC Section 91 During Probe To Answer Queries; Delhi High Court

Finally, the Court concluded that “there can be no interference to the will which stands proved unequivocally.”

The Court directed that “the appeals are allowed” and ordered that “the judgment and decree of the High Court and that of the trial court stands set aside.” It further declared that “the will stands proved unequivocally” and that there was “no interference to the will which stands proved unequivocally. The plaintiff is found to have no partible claim over the properties of her father, which by a will have been bequeathed to the other siblings of the plaintiff.”

 The suit stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukund P. Unny, AOR Mr. Sanjay Nair S., Adv. Mr. A. Hariprasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. P.B. Krishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S. Janardanan, AOR Mrs. Anila Tharakan Thomas, Adv. Mrs. Vishnupriya P. Govind, Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR

Case Title: K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1451
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11057–11058 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran