Kiran Raj

In a significant judgment delivered on January 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, holding a disputed will invalid due to suspicious circumstances and procedural inadequacies. The case originated from a suit for partition filed by the respondents, seeking a 5/7 share in the properties of the deceased, Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar. The appellants contested the claim, relying on an unregistered will purportedly executed by the deceased on April 6, 1990, bequeathing the properties in favor of the second wife and her children.

The Trial Court and the High Court, in separate proceedings, rejected the validity of the will, citing several discrepancies and procedural lapses. The appellants subsequently approached the Supreme Court, contending that the lower courts had erred in their evaluation of evidence and application of legal principles governing the execution and validity of wills under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Supreme Court noted that the will, forming the crux of the dispute, was an unregistered document, requiring strict compliance with statutory mandates. The appellants, as propounders of the will, bore the burden of proving its execution and removing all doubts arising from suspicious circumstances. The Court held that “mere proof of execution of a will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not suffice to establish its validity. The existence of suspicious circumstances places an additional burden on the propounder to dispel such doubts convincingly.”

The evidence presented revealed multiple discrepancies in the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. The Court observed inconsistencies in the testator’s health, with the will stating, “with full conscious, with good memory and without instigation by anyone,” while simultaneously mentioning the testator’s affliction with heart disease and treatment by several doctors. The first appellant, who was a beneficiary of the will, admitted that the stamp papers used for drafting the document were purchased in her name, further exacerbating doubts about the document's authenticity.

The Court also examined the testimonies of the attesting witnesses. DW2, the brother of the first appellant and an attesting witness, claimed that the notary public read the contents of the will aloud to the testator, who then signed it. However, the Court found no evidence in the will to corroborate this claim. The judgment stated: “If the testator was in good health and capable of dictating the will, the need for its reading by the notary public raises questions. Moreover, the absence of explicit notation regarding the reading of the will to the testator adds to the suspicious circumstances.”

Additional concerns included the location of the will’s execution. The document was reportedly executed in Madurai, a considerable distance from the testator’s residence in Tenkasi, despite his frail health. The Court remarked: “The execution of a will at a location far removed from the testator’s residence, especially given his poor health, casts a shadow of doubt over the document’s authenticity.”

The Court further noted the non-examination of crucial individuals involved in the preparation of the will, such as the scribe and the typist, though it acknowledged that such examination is not always necessary. In this case, however, their absence compounded the doubts arising from other suspicious circumstances. The judgment stated: “The failure to examine the scribe and typist in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case deprives the propounder of essential corroborative evidence.”

The Court also addressed the contradiction in the appellant’s stance. The first appellant denied any involvement in the preparation of the will while admitting that the stamp papers were purchased in her name. Additionally, the attesting witness (DW2) claimed to have handed over the will to the first appellant, further entangling the narrative with inconsistencies.

After examining the evidence and findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court upheld that the appellants had failed to establish the execution of the will in accordance with legal requirements. The judgment stated: “The defendants have failed to prove that the testator executed the will by putting his signature after understanding its contents. The findings of the lower courts on the invalidity and lack of genuineness of the will do not warrant interference.”

The Court relied on precedents such as Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad and Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo to affirm that suspicious circumstances must be adequately addressed to validate a will. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had thoroughly examined the evidence, were upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors.

Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Case Number / Neutral Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023; 2025 INSC 10

[View/Download order]