"Non-mention of Wife in Will a 'Tell-Tale Insignia' of Propounder, Not Testator": Supreme Court Invalidates Will Bequeathing Entire Property to Nephew, Upholds High Court's Reversal of Concurrent Findings
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the failure to mention the status of the wife or provide reasons for her disinheritance in the Will amounted to a suspicious circumstance, thereby rendering the Will invalid. The Court affirmed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision that reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which had accepted the Will as genuine.
The Bench directed that the 1st respondent is the rightful owner and in possession of the suit land, as declared by the High Court. It also dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant, who had claimed ownership based on a registered Will. The Court observed that the total omission of the wife from the Will was a significant suspicious circumstance, particularly when evidence showed she lived with the testator until his death. The omission, it stated, reflected not the free will of the testator but the influence of the propounder. The Court concluded that the Will was not executed with a free disposing mind, thereby affirming the High Court's decree in favour of the respondent.
Maya Singh, a resident of village Sathiala, was the owner of agricultural land measuring 67 kanals 4 marlas (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). He died on 10 November 1991. The appellant, Gurdial Singh, is his nephew, while the 1st respondent, Jagir Kaur, was described as his wife. Gurpal Singh, the 2nd respondent, claimed to be the adopted son of Maya Singh and the 1st respondent.
Following Maya Singh's death, the suit land was mutated in the name of the 1st respondent on 27 October 1992. Subsequently, the appellant filed a suit (RBT No. 329/1992), seeking declaration of his ownership over the suit land, propounding a Will dated 16 May 1991 allegedly executed by Maya Singh in his favour. The appellant contended that Maya Singh had been married to one Joginder Kaur, who predeceased him, and denied that Jagir Kaur was his lawfully wedded wife or that Gurpal Singh was his adopted son.
In response, the respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration that Jagir Kaur was Maya Singh’s legally wedded wife and Gurpal Singh was their adopted son. The suits were tried together.
The Trial Court dismissed the respondents’ suit and decreed the appellant's suit. It held that the Will dated 16 May 1991 was genuine and declared the appellant the lawful owner of the suit land. It also found that Jagir Kaur was Maya Singh’s wife but rejected the claim that Gurpal Singh was his adopted son.
The 1st respondent preferred two appeals challenging the judgment in the appellant's suit and the dismissal of her own suit. The First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Amritsar) dismissed both appeals, affirming the Trial Court's findings.
Jagir Kaur then filed Second Appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (RSA No. 837 of 1996 and RSA No. 958 of 1996). The High Court framed a substantial question of law: "Whether the execution of Will dated 16.05.1991, set up by Gurdial Singh, was duly proved?"
The High Court held that the omission of Jagir Kaur’s name and any reference to her status in the Will amounted to a suspicious circumstance that vitiated the document. It accordingly reversed the decisions of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, holding that Jagir Kaur was the owner and in possession of the suit land.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, both Gurdial Singh and Jagir Kaur passed away and were substituted by their respective legal representatives.
Before the Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Manoj Swarup, appearing for the appellant, argued that the Will was registered and had been duly proved through the testimony of PW-2 Surinder Kumar (scribe) and PW-3 Chanan Singh (attesting witness). He submitted that the Will had been signed by Maya Singh in the presence of the attesting witnesses and read over to him before registration. He further submitted that Jagir Kaur had received the deceased’s pension and other monetary benefits, and mere non-mention of her name in the Will could not render it invalid.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submitted that Jagir Kaur was the lawfully wedded wife of Maya Singh and had resided with him until his death. He argued that the omission of her name in the Will was indicative of the appellant's intent to deny her status and exclude her entirely, which, in turn, reflected on the suspicious nature of the Will.
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Will must comply with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It stated: "Onus lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator."
It referred to Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur, quoting: "Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing... The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier... the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator."
The Court observed: "It is from this prism, we need to examine whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the appellate court and holding the Will was vitiated due to existence of suspicious circumstances."
Addressing the findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court noted that the Trial Court had acknowledged Jagir Kaur as Maya Singh's wife but had dismissed the significance of her omission from the Will. It recorded: "She is again silent whether she performed the last rites of Maya Singh. In the circumstances if Maya Singh did not mention about her in the Will the same is not required to be explained by the plaintiff."
The First Appellate Court upheld this reasoning, stating: "Mere deprivation of a legal heir or mere non mention of such legal heir’s name in the testamentary disposition, in itself, does not invalidate the will."
However, the High Court found the omission of Jagir Kaur’s name from the Will and lack of explanation as a suspicious circumstance. It stated: "The complete silence on the part of the executant qua his wife, while executing the Will, renders the will a suspicious document and leads to the inference that the same had not been executed by the executant of his free disposing mind."
The Supreme Court affirmed this observation, stating: "Such erasure of marital status is the tell-tale insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself."
The Bench considered whether there was any evidence to support Maya Singh's intention to exclude his wife. It noted: "Evidence on record shows 1st respondent was residing with Maya Singh till the latter’s death. Nothing has come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter."
On the argument that Jagir Kaur did not perform the last rites, the Court clarified: "Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by Male Sapinda relations. Given this practice, 1st respondent not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of indifferent relationship."
According to the Court, the omission of Jagir Kaur and reasons for her disinheritance raised serious doubts: "A cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the Will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the ‘free will’ of the testator."
The Supreme Court concluded by upholdingthe decision of the High Court and dismissing the appeals. It held: "We have no hesitation to hold that non-mention of 1st respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will, is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant."
Addressing the reliance placed on Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram, the Court distinguished the facts: "In Dhanpat (Supra), the wife who had been disinherited, herself admitted that she had been ousted by her husband. On the other hand, DW3 unequivocally stated that she was living with her husband till his death."
It further observed: "No evidence was led to show whether the quantum of money said to be settled in favour of 1st respondent was reasonable and would satisfy the conscience of a man of ordinary prudence with regard to her complete expungement in the Will."
Accordingly, the Court directed: "For the aforesaid reasons, we affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeals. Pending application (s), if any, stands disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR; Ms. Ananya Basudha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.; Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Adv.; Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, AOR; Ms. Divya Kumari Sharma, Adv
Case Title: Gurdial Singh (Dead) through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 866
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 3509-3510/2010
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
