Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Kerala High Court’s direction to send a disputed Will for handwriting expert examination and allowed the appeal. The dispute concerns a Will attributed to the appellant’s late father, where the appellant’s case was that the document was not executed with the testator’s free will and consent. As the appellant confirmed that the testator’s signatures on the Will are not disputed, the Court held that an expert opinion on signatures was unnecessary at this stage, while clarifying that the Will must still be proved in accordance with law.

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a Kerala High Court judgment and order dated 30.06.2023, which set aside a trial court order and directed that the Will in question be sent to a handwriting expert for an opinion on the authenticity of the testator’s signature(s).

Also Read: Waqf Tribunal Jurisdiction Confined To Properties In List Of Auqaf Or Registered Under Waqf Act; Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, the legal issue considered was whether such a forensic handwriting examination of the Will’s signatures was required when the authenticity of the signatures was not disputed, but the Will was questioned on the basis that it was not executed with the testator’s free will and consent.

During hearing, counsel for the appellant stated that the Will bears the signatures of the appellant’s father, Late E.J. Thomas, and that this was not disputed. The Court also referred to the plaint in O.S. No. 258/2020, noting an averment that the testator did not execute the document “with his free will and consent.”

On the position taken for the appellant regarding signatures, the Court stated: “We are now informed by the learned counsel for the appellant, Annie Thomas, that she does not dispute the fact that the Will bears the signatures of her father, Late E.J. Thomas.”

The Court noted the material it was shown from the plaint: “Our attention is also drawn to the plaint filed by the appellant in O.S. No. 258/2020 wherein, in paragraph 4, the she stated as follows:- ‘The plaintiff’s father E.J. Thomas did not execute or create any such document as one bearing No. 89/3/2008 on the file of the S.R.O., Maradu with his free will and consent.’”

Also Read: Indore Water Contamination Case: MP High Court Orders Probe By Retired HC Judge And Directs Daily Water Tests

The Court observed: “In the light of the aforestated averment in the plaint to the effect that only the testator’s free will and consent were in issue and not his signature(s), as such; now buttressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the signature(s) of the appellant’s father are not in dispute in the aforestated Will but the said Will still requires to be proved, in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.”

The Court ordered: “The impugned order/judgment passed by the High Court is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed, leaving it open to the parties to agitate all other issues before the trial court.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, Adv.; Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Sunil Narayanan, Adv.; Mr. Thomas Martin K, Adv.; M/s Axess Legal Corp, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. V Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR; Mrs. Beena Victor, Adv.; Mr. C Govind Venugopal, Adv.; Mr. Ravi Lomod, Adv.; Mr. Ashwani Kumar Soni, Adv.

Case Title: ANNIE THOMAS VERSUS RANI THOMAS & ORS.
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2026 (@ SLP (C) NO. 4361/2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran